Anticipatory bail granted for some petitioners due to lack of serious allegations while denied for others based on specific accusations.

COMMON ORDER:

Since these criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.466 of

2025, these criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.466 of 2025 on the file of Jadcherla Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that de facto complainant was engaged to petitioner/A-1 on 31.08.2024 with the consent of elders, during which a dowry of 4 lakhs and 7 tulas of gold was agreed to and handed over at her parent’s expenses. After the engagement, de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner/A-1 maintained contact with her, met her frequently, even physically exploited her under the pretext of marriage. The petitioners allegedly kept postponing the wedding. Eventually, the wedding was arranged on 09.04.2025, but on 08.04.2025, the accused took back the gold and falsely claimed that the de facto complainant family arrived late to the wedding and wedding was called off, she was allegedly humiliated by accused. Basing on the same, present crime was registered.

4. Heard Mr.Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in the said crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, ingredients under Section 69 of the BNS are not attracted against petitioner/A-1 or other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that engagement of the de facto complainant and petitioner/A-1 with consent of the elders took place on 31.08.2024 and the marriage date was fixed on 09.04.2025. The de facto complainant herself withdrawn the marriage and on the otherhand lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 11.06.2025 with an intention to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are sisters, brother-in-laws and parents of A-1. There are no allegations much less specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8. He further submitted that the petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have committed a grave offence, and there are specific allegations against them and the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is every chance to influence the witnesses and to interfere with the investigation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by de-facto complainant crime No.466 of 2025 was registered on 11.06.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. After perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that offence under Section 69 of BNS is not attracted against the petitioner/accused Nos.2 to 8. In so far as, petitioner/A-1 is concerned there are specific and serious allegations are leveled.

8. Taking into consideration the above facts, since there are sp