1. Accused sought pre-arrest bail for criminal offences under the BNS 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act following a matrimonial dispute and subsequent annulment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 37991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Golla Veda Prakash Alias Salindra Veda Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9062/2026
Important Points
The court granted pre-arrest bail to certain accused persons based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, while dismissing the petition as infructuous for those already arrested.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.69, S.89, S.83, S.351(2), S.45
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: S.4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.69, S.89, S.83, S.351(2), S.45
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: S.4
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-arrest Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail based on the evaluation of facts, including the age of the accused at the time of marriage, the delay in lodging the complaint after the annulment of marriage, and the permanent residency of the petitioners. (Para 5, 7)
(B) Procedural Law - Infructuous Petition - A petition seeking pre-arrest bail is rendered infructuous if the petitioners have already been arrested during the pendency of the proceedings. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Result: Partly allowed.
(B) Procedural Law - Infructuous Petition - A petition seeking pre-arrest bail is rendered infructuous if the petitioners have already been arrested during the pendency of the proceedings. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Result: Partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Varun Byreddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Varun Byreddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
Table of Contents
2. Accused claimed innocence and false implication; the Prosecution contended that bail should be denied as the investigation is pending and there is a risk of absconding. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court noted the major status of the victim, the minor age of the first accused at marriage, and the post-annulment filing of the complaint. (Para 5 )
4. Pre-arrest bail is rendered infructuous upon the prior arrest of specific accused, while others may be granted relief subject to stringent conditions during investigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. The criminal petition is dismissed regarding the already arrested accused and allowed for others with specific bail conditions including periodic appearance and surrender of passports. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. Does a petition for pre-arrest bail maintain its relevance after the arrest of the petitioner?
No, if the accused has already been arrested, the petition for pre-arrest bail becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. (Para 6 , 8 )
7. What factors influence the granting of pre-arrest bail for offences involving domestic disputes and minor marital age?
The court evaluates the nature of the allegations, the age of the parties at marriage, the timing of the complaint relative to civil annulment, and the necessity of ensuring the accused's availability for ongoing police investigation. (Para 5 , 7 )
##PAGE1##
APHC010541472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9062/2026 Between:
1. GOLLA VEDA PRAKASH ALIAS SALINDRA VEDA PRAKASH, S/O.
GOLLA MURALI,AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE,DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
2. LAKSHMI, W/O. SRINU,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE,DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT
3. SRINU, S/O. SALEENDRA THIMMANNA,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE,DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT
4. GOLLA MURALI, S/O. SALEENDRA THIMMANNA,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. AGRICULTURE,R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE,DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
5. MAHESHWARI, S/O. GOLLA MURALI,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
AGRICULTURE,R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE,DHONE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 5 AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
##PAGE2##1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.98 of 2026 of Dhone Rural Police Station, Nandyal District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 , 89, 83, 351(2) read with 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Mr. Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are the innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. They are law-abiding citizens. They have not committed any offence. They are the sole breadwinners of the family. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioners are released on pre- arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
##PAGE3##4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. As seen from the record, the victim was a major at the time of the marriage. Accused No.1 was aged only 20 years at the time of the marriage and had not attained the age of majority required for contracting the marriage. The de-facto complainant lodged the complaint against the Petitioners eight months after the marriage was annulled by the competent Court. The Petitioners are permanent residents of Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been arrested. Therefore, the Criminal Petition, insofar as it relates to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking pre arrest bail, has become infructuous.
7. Having regar‑d to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and nature of the allegations against Petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5/Accused Nos.1, 4 & 5, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to Petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5/Accused Nos.1, 4 & 5 subject to the following conditions:
i. In the event of their arrest, the Petitioner Nos.1, 4 & 5/Accused Nos.1, 4 & 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfact
