: ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.1086 of 2025 of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 49 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on 08.11.2025 at about 12:10 PM, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that she was informed that her daughter, Swathi, had been murdered. On reaching Swathi’s house, she found her dead with her throat slit. Her grandson stated that two unknown men entered the house early in the morning and killed his mother. The complainant stated that Swathi, who had separated from her husband due to disputes, was allegedly in a relationship with one Kishan, leading to disputes with his family. It was alleged that Kishan’s son-in-law, Rajesh, along with another person, murdered Swathi. Hence, requested the police for necessary action against the accused basing on which police registered the case against the accused for the above offence.

3. Heard Sri C. Kamalakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 contended that all the allegations made against the petitioner are false, baseless, and have arisen out of a false complaint lodged by the complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the wife of A.3, has been falsely implicated in the case despite having no connection with the alleged offence. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s name does not find mention either in the complaint or in the FIR, and no specific overt acts have been attributed to her. It is also submitted that A.1 to A.3 have already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.428 of 2026 dated 22.01.2026 and Crl.P.No.852 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026, and that the investigation is substantially complete except for filing of the charge sheet. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as A.4 only on suspicion, merely because she is the wife of A.3. He also contended that petitioner will cooperate with the investigating agency, appear before the Court, and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter opposing bail contending that the petitioner herein is the main conspirator in the alleged offence because of illegal relationship between the deceased and husband of petitioner. If petitioner is released on bail, she will tamper the evidence and threaten the witnesses. The investigation is not yet completed. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to bail and prayed to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both sides and the material available on record, the offence alleged against the petitioner are under Section 103, 49 of BNS. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is no way connected with the said crime, the material on record shows that she is also one of the conspirator in the alleged murder. As the offence is serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.