Kothamasu Manikranth v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

pendI'ng enquiry and trial arising out of crime No.190 of 2025 on the file of the pattabhjpuram p.s., Guntur, Guntur District., The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitl-on and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearI-ng the arguments of SRI S DILIP JAYA RAM Advocate for the petitioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1, the Court made the following. ORDER I lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3369] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO. THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6392/2025 Betwee n : 1, Kothamasu Manikranth, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Vysya Vranasi Street Addanki Town, Baptala District. AND I.|Petitioner

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Pattabhipuram P.S., Guntur, Guntur District., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

#2. Muvvala Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Kanaka Rathnam, aged about 58 years, R/o.3-29-150, FIat No.404, Hari Towers, Ramanuja' Kutam,1st Line, Krishna Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P. (Respondent No.2 is I'mPleaded aS Per the Court order dated

08.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of2025 I'n Crl.P.No.6392 of2025). ...Respondents Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C., and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to direct release of the Petitioner on Bail pending enquiry and trial arising out of crime No.190 of 2025 on the file of the Pattabhipuram P.S., Guntur, Guntur District., and pass IANO: 1 OF2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the T=--, --- High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent as ~S Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant in the main criminal petition anc! 2 -/A •/ Pass Counsel for the PetitlrOner/accused:

1.S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:

#1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

#2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:

#1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhI'tha, 2023 (for short, fBNSS]), is filed on behalf of the pe{itl-oner/A.1, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.190 of 2025 of Pa{tabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District.

#2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) r/w 3(5) of`Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, {BNS]).

#3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the Sub-Inspector of Pattabhipuram Pol'lce Station registered Crime No.190/2025 against the a petitioner and three others, based on a complaint filed by the deceased's father. He alleged that his daughter, Ch. Kanaka Venkata Naga Sai Meghana (aged 24), was married to A.1 on 12.02.2023. At the time of marriage, he paid . €20,00,000 as dowry, €5,00,000 in cash, and gifted gold and silver ornaments worth €20,00,000 in response to demands from A.1 and his family. Subsequently, the accused allegedly demanded residential plots in Guntur. Although the complainant assured that such property would be transferred to the childre-n of A.1 in -the future, A.1 continued to harass the deceased, pressuring her to register the plots inL his name. This harassment was reportedly supported by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. After the birth of a female child, the harassment intensified. Further dowry was allegedly =EEn i. \ 3 @ demanded in the form of plots .at Gorantla, Guntur, and the deceased's gold ornaments, were pledged at a bank. These actions reportedly caused her severe mental and emotional distress,'ultimately leading her to end her life' by jumping from her apartment and commit suicide on O2.05.2025 at 05.00 A.M.

#4. Sri DiI'lp Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner sulbmits that the petitioner is innocent, and the case lacks the essential elements of an offence under Section 80(2) of the BNS, as no specific role has b'een attributed to him. The crime was registered on 02.05.2025, and the investigation is nearly 1 complete, with material witnesses (LW-1 to. LW-8) examined; only RFSL reports and the final charge sheet remain pending. There is no risk of evidence tampering or interference. Incriminating materials have been seized, and key witnesses examined. The Petitioner's earlier bail application (CrI.M.P.No.870 of 2025) before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, was dismissed mechanically on 10.06.2025 without proper consideration. The Petitioner is a respected, permanent resident of the village and has been in custody since 05.05.2025. He is willing to furnish adequate sureties and comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

#5. On the other hand, Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant PubI'lc prosecutor for the lSt Respondent-State, strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the incomplete ihvestiga{|lon.

#6. On behalf of the Defacto complainant, Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

#7. Pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the De facto Complainant has been impleaded as the 2nd Respondent in the present Criminal Petition.

#8. I have heard both sides, Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. <-s:--3Jpr sgs`-€,-==`=¥32ser=\=S5:=t=-~3t333TFREFRE

#9. In Masroor V. Sfafe ofu.P,7, a Division Bench of the HonJble Supre'me Court observed as follows:

#13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elabo-rate examination of evid.en.:e a.nd detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may Prejudice the accused, should be avo~Ided, but there iS a need to ind-ICate in such_ or.der reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted Particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.

#10. As seen from the material on record, Petitioner/A.1 was remanded to judicial custody on 05.05.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. ll. According to the prosecution's case, on o1.05.2025, the elders took the deceased to the petI'tiOner/A.1Js house; however, the petitioner/A.1 was unwilling to reconcile or rejoI'n With the deceased. The prosecution further asserts that the victim committed suicide on o2.05.2025 at approximately 5:00 AM, at the residence of the de facto complainant, but not at the petI'tiOner'S residence. The record shows that the petitioner had dropped the deceased at her parentsl house before the ugadi festival, and as a result, the deceased had been residing separately for over a month. Although allegations have been made that the petitioner physically and mentally harassed the deceased with demands for additional dowry since the time of marriage, no substantive material has been presented to indicate that any complaint was lodged before the registration of the present case, It is not the Prosecution's case that the further detention of the Petitioner is required to conduct further investigation.

#12. The two paramount considerations, namely, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence, relate to ensuring a fair case trial in the course of justice. Due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others.

#13. In Sanjayanandra v. CB/2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

#21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his