The High Court · 2025

Smt. Jammugani Varalakshmi, Wo.late Rama Krishna, Aged 75 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.8-1-3, 3rd lane, near Sri Mahalakshamnia Temple, Buchaiah Thtoa. WC Guntur Po, Kothapeta, Guntur Dtstrict, Andhra Pradbsh State. Jammugani Durga Prasad S/o.late Rama Krishna, Aged 55 years, Occ. pvt Service, R/o.H No B-1-3, 3rd lane, near Sri MaFalakshdmma Temple, Buchaiah Thtoa, WC Guntur Po, Kothapeta, GunturDistrict, Andhra pradbsh State. Smt Jammggani .Anuradha, Wo.Durga Prasad, Ag ed 54 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.B-1-3, 3rd lane, near Sri Mahilakshamma Temple, Buchaiah Thtoa, WC Guntur Po, Kothapeta, Guntur District, Andhra pradbsh State. . .Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana. rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court olTelangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, th-- High court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No. B of 2025 on the file of the [\4adhapur Police Station, Cyberabad C ommissionerate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI ,Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent and of sri tvlr. G.Rajesham for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER. i TIIE IION'E}LE SE'I JIJS:TICE J. STLEENTVASFTAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.z[153 and 2t157 of 2025 COMMON ORDEB: Crirninal Petition No.4153 of 2O25 is filed under Section 482 ol the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') by the petitioners, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.7 of 2025 of Panjagr-rtta Police Station, Hyderabad registered as wornan missing case.

2. Crirninal Petition No.4157 of 2025 is frled under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS) by the petitioners, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.S of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offe nce punishable under Section 1OB read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The petitioners in both the criminal petitions are seeking anticipatory bail in Crirne No.7 of 2025 of Panj agr.rtta Police Station and Crirne No.B of 2025 of Madhapr,rr Police Station respectively, on the very sarrre grou.nds. Therefore, both the criminal petitions are clubbed together and disposed by way of this cornrnon order. 2 t: \< ', I "-. \

4. The casc of prosecution in l>ricf is that on

02.O1,.2025 at 11.OO PM, de-facto complainant-Adepu Prabhu lodged a report alleging that at around 1 1.lO AM, he left the house for his work as Chief Editor at Sr.rmarr TV and retr-rrned around a.OO PM, bcfore returning, he call:d his wife Durga Madhavi (deceased) twice but no responrjc. Upon arriving horne, he unlocked the door w'ith key ar'.ril:rble with him, found his vvife was not there, assurning l.hrtt. she might have gone for a rt alk or to a neighbour's housc, lrc rvzrited for some tirne ard called hcr again, this tirne, hc heard her phone ringing insicle the housc, ald tre found thc phorte on the bed of 2nd bed roorn, suspecting that she h:rd left the house without her phonc, caused enquiries r,vi tl- neighbours, but they had not sccn hcr. Then he called his .rounger daughter- Spandana, who askcd hirn not to worry anrl to check for any messages on her phone, and upon checkir-rg the phone, he discovered a video rccording containing a sLici(le note. Basing on report of LW. 1, a case was registered in lrirne No. Z /2025 for the offence undcr Wornan rnissing. Dur ing the course of investigation, on O3.O1 .2025 at 8.OO AM, an unidentihed fernale body was traced in Durgarn Cheruvrr, and a case had been registered at Madhapur PS vide Crirnc No.B/2024 under \'..... Section 194 of BNSS. Later the dead bocl1. r.vas identified as 3 the body of cornplainant's wife i.e., rnissing wornan in this case. During the course of investigation, re-examined LW.1 and recorded his staternent. Basing on the evidence collected and basing on sel[-recorded suicide video of deceased, involvement of petitioners herein came into light and altered section of law from Section L94 of BNSS to Section 1O8 of BNS. 5 Heard Mr. Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Syed Yasar Marnoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State in both the peLitions and Mr. G.Rajesharn, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / de-facto-cornplainant in Crirnina-l Petition No.4153 of 2025.

6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners subrnitted that the petitioners have not comrnitted any offence and there are no allegations either in the complaint lodged l>y de-facto cornpiainant/respondent No.2 in Crirne No.7 of 2025 or in Crime No.S of 2025 against the petitioner and the petitioners have not rnade as accused in both the crimes. However, at the instance ol de-facto-cornplainart/respondentNo. 2 (hereinafter referred as 'respondent No.2'), the police are trying to irnplicate the petitioners as acctlsed to resolve ttre property and financial 4 disputes and to arrcst them in the above said crirnes. 6 .2 H c-. further subrnittecl that initially Crime No. 7 of 2025 was rcgistered as woman missing basing upon the cornplaint lodgcd by respondent No.2 ald Orirnc No.g of 2025 was register-cd basing upon thc complaint lr>dgecl by the police constable: r-ramery, Mr.G.Srisailarn under Section r94 of BNSS, on the fiic of Madhapur policc Station. Hov..ever, basing t. pon the staterncnt given by respondent No.2 on1y, the Section of law was altcred from 194 of BNSS to Section 1Og read with Section 3(5) of BNS. He also subrnitted tlrat the petitioners have not instigated the deceased to comrnit suicide and there is no abetment on their part and the ingr:dients of Section 108 of BNS arc not attracted against the petitioners.

6.3 He also submitted that petitioner No.1 is mother, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are brother and sister_in_law of the deceased zrnd at no point of time, they have abused, harassed or abetted her to commit suicide. According to the statement of respondent No.2, there are property disputes and financial differences betwecn the petitioners, respondent No.2 and the deceased. At the instance of respondent No.2, with an intention to resolve the said civil disputes i.e., property or hnancial disputes, police are trying to irnplice.te the petitioners 5 as acclrsed in the above said crimes and the same is not perrnissible under law. He further subrnitted that petitioner No' 1 is 75 years 6.4 old woman, suffering with old age ailrnents, petitioner No'2 is a private employee. and petitioner No'3 is his wife and she is also suffering with health problems, and they are not having any crirninal antecedents. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and they will abide by the conditions, which are going to be irnposed by this Cor-rrt. Unless the petitioners are granted anticipatory baii' they will be pt.rt to great hardship' Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners'

6.5 In support of his contention, he relied r-rpon ttre following j r-rdgrnents i) Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradeshl; ii) Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothe12.

7.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent I 2025 SCC Online SC 107 2 2O2l SCC Online SC 737 6 No.2 submitted that the petitioners have ,:ornrnitted a grave offence and due to their harassment o::lly. the deceased cornrnitted suicide. The deceased specihc:ally stated in her self-recorded video through her cell phone that due to the harassment made by the petitioners only, she cornrnitted suicide and the petitioners are solely responsible for cal. se of her death, He furttrer sr-rbrnitted that respr>ndent No.2 in his staternent specifically stated that the petitioners have used filthy languagc against the deceased and also harassed her, due to whiclr she cornrrritted suicide. 7 .2. He further subrnitted ttrat the deceased had paid tmge amotrnt of Rs.85 to 90 lakhs to safegr_rarcl the properties of the petitioners ald basing on their words, she cleared the loan account of Mannern Adi Narayana and released the mortgaged properties belonging to her fath er. However, the deceased carne to know that the petitioner No.2 clairning the entire property through the will deed executed by her father and the petitioners refused to repay the alnor-rnt, which was given by her ald a-lso refused to give her share in the joint farnily properties, on the other hand, they harassed the deceased by using frlthy language Due to their harassment only, she cornmitted suicide and the sarne was specifically 'l i l , l i I i I I ; 7 stated in her vid.eo, which is recorded by her in her rnobile ptrone. The investigation is under progress and at this stage they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail' If the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, they will influence ttre witnesses and also interferc with Lhe investigation' karned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the B. anticipatory bail petition and submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave offence and there are specific allegations against them. Though initially the crime was registered under section 194 of BNSS, subsequently in Crime No.8 of 2025, the police altered Section 194 of BNSS into Section 1O8 read with Section 3(5) of BNS' During the course of investigation, LWs. I to 3, who are none other than the husband, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased have categoricaliy staled that the petitioners have harassed the deceased and also the deceasecl in her self-recorded video specihcally stated that the petitioners are responsible for her death. Moreover, the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. ) l I ! I i 8 o

9. Having considered the rival subrnissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that initially the crime No.7 of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 as woman missing. Therealter, basing on the complaint lodged by the Police Constable, Crirr.e No.g of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS. Subseque;rtly altered Section of law from Section 194 of BNSS into Section rog rez.d u.ith Section 3(5) of BNS.

10. Learned Additionai public prosecutor basing upon the instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of po ice, Madhapur police Station dated 03.04.2O25, submitted that the in'estigating officer examined LWs.1 to 8 and recorded their statements and investigation is under progress. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 ptaced the statements of LWs. 1 to 3, who are none other than the husband, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased, wherein they specifically stated that due to the harassment of the petitione:s only, the deceased died. 1i. The record furLher reveals that the dc:eased has recorded video in her ce1l phone, wherein she stated that the petitioners are sole responsible for her death. The record further reveals that there are disputes between the petitioners, deceased and respondent No.2 in i I 9 respect of joint family properties and also some hnancial disputes. According to the prosecution, the deceased in her self-recorded video specihcally rnentioned that the petitioners are solely responsible for her death.

12. The judgrnents of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahendra Awase (supra) and Kanchan Sharma (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circurnstances of the case on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that the deceased in self recorded video specifically rnentioned the narnes of the petitioners and they are responsible for cause of her death. 1 3. Insofar as other contention raised bv the learned cou.nsel for the petitioners that tLrere are no .tt"gaaio.r" against the petitioners either in the cornplaints or their names were not rnentioned as accused in the FIR concerned, the deceased in self recorded video specihcally rnentioned the names of the petitioners and they are responsible for camse of her death.

14. It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitender I(urnar vs. State of Haryanac held that the accr.rsed can be convicted even if not narned in 3 [2Ot21 6 SCC 2O4 , I l0 o the FIR, provided that there is credible evidence linking the accttsed to a specific role in the crime.

15. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts ald circurnstances of ttre case and gravity and scriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory baii to the petitioners, especially when the investigation is under progress

16. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed As a sequel thereto, rniscellaneous applications, if aly, l pending in this petition stand closed. To //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR \ I]EP 1\ l 1l { \ sEcTtoN oFFtcER

1. The XIV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally at l-lyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, punjagutta police Station at Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRt LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESA|, Adv,:cate [OpUC] 4. One CC to SRt. G.RAJESHAM, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies PB/PSL (r HIGH COURT DATED: 0710412025 ,,-,,:11i.',": "''.', 7,.- 2I rlu8 2ffi \.,) -:./ j' t) '';/ COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.4153 & CRLP 4157 ot 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE CRMINAL PETITIONS ?r 2_5 7 tf-