Anticipatory bail may be denied to a spouse in dowry death cases where specific allegations make custodial interrogation necessary, but may be granted to in-laws if allegations are vague and they resided separately from the deceased.

COMMON ORDER

Criminal Petition Nos.6104 of 2026 and 6109 of 2026 are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused No.3 and 1 respectively in connection with Crime No.413 of 2026 of Saroornagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 19.04.2026 the de-facto complainant, lodged a report before the police stating that her younger daughter, Abhinaya (35 years), was married to A1 on 27.01.2020, and that substantial dowry in the form of gold, cash, and silver was given at the time of marriage. Soon after the marriage, A1 subjected Abhinaya to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry, which continued despite intervention by elders and the couple living separately for the past two and a half years. The accused, along with his parents, allegedly persisted in demanding more money and subjected her to cruelty. For about 20 days prior to the incident, A1 had been residing with his parents, leaving Abhinaya alone with her minor son. On 18.04.2026, upon receiving information that Abhinaya was not opening her room door, the complainant and family reached her residence and found her hanging from a ceiling fan; she was brought down and found dead. Hence complainant requested to take necessary action. Based on this report, the police registered a case against the accused for the alleged offences.

3. Heard Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1–State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated, A1 never demanded dowry, and the deceased and A1 were residing separately from A2 and A3 and that there are no specific allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment “soon before death,” as A1 had not visited the deceased for about 20–25 days prior to the incident, and A3 never resided with them. He further submitted that A1 was suffering from severe depression and had been hospitalized, no suicide note exists, and no additional dowry was ever demanded; rather, A1 had financially assisted the deceased’s family. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing the present Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- de-facto complainant opposed the petition, contending that due to the physical and mental harassment by the petitioners, the deceased committed suicide, leaving behind her minor child, and if released on bail, the petitioners may threaten witnesses. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions, contending that the allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature, as the death occurred within seven years of marriage due to dowry harassment, and custodial interrogation is necessary and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. In light of the submissions made by all the learned counsel, and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegations against A1 are specific and serious in nature, particularly in view o