The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M P K ADITYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI SYED YASAR MAMOON, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER I . : i I ! I I I t i I : I I I I TIIE ITOIV'BLE SR.I JTJSTICE J.SFIEE)NI\/AS RAO CRIWIINAL PETITION No.8O93 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has becn lilcd rrrrdcr Scction 482 of the Bherrerti.va Nagarik Surakslr:r Sarr:Irita, 2O23 (for short, 'BNSS') b_v thc petilioncr, r,vho is arrar crl zrs irccused No.2, sceking anticipatory bail in connect.ir)r with crime No.172 of 2025 on thc filc of tllc Vzrnasthr,r ,i1 uram police Station registcrc-cl for thc olle ncc purtr;lrable uncler Section 108 r/w 3(5) ol tl'rc tlharatiya N , irya Sernl'rita, 2023 (for short 't3NS).

2. Heard Mr.M.P.l{.Aclit.ya, lcarncd c()unsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yarsar Marnoon, lear-r Lc,j Additional Public Prosecutor appearit-rg [or resp<trtck]nt, :l t rtc:

3. The case of prosccution in bricl is thirr thc: de facto cornplainant rrade a complarnt with the poLicc alleging that he had two sons ar-rd his eldcr son/< c,:eerscd potti Venkata Ramakrishna aged :rbout 48 yeerr s working as private crnployee in ()rzrnge Mc:talics. ln thc Yc,rr 2OO3, his elder son Venkata Ramakrishna got marriccl ,,r.ith acclrsed No.1 and thqy were blessccl u,ith onc dzrrrglrter namely Yodha, aged 1 3 ycars. Afltcr marriage, i rc,:uscd No. 1 2 completed Post-(iraduation' Later accr-rsed No' 1 has started harassing his son mcntaliy' In thc year 2022 ' l'ris son took his wife to Hospital and spent rnoney for her treatment since then accused No ' I increased harassing his son mentally, later his in-laws started harassing his son/deceased by making false allcgations' I r-r the year Au.gust, 2023, accused No l took 4OO grams of gold and around Rs.3 lakl-rs ancl wcnt to her native piace Narsaraopet, Ar-idhra Pradcsh arnd accused No 1 also ln the year rnaintaining illegal affair with hcr fricnd 2Cl23, sir,c ftled a Divorce case in Lhe Court' after some days they asked her to comc and start again new conjugai life, br.rt strc denied On 07 'O4 2025' his elder son/deceased wctlt Lo Narrsaraopct on Court hearing date and on thc samc day at l4'OO hours accr'rscd asked his son to see his daughter for that he wcnt to thcir trouse' then they insultccl and beat him, kecping the previous issues in mind. On OS.O4 2025, his son/deceased wrote a letter,consumedanunknownpoisonanddiedonthespot in his apartrnent. It is further alleged that he suspected that accused No.l and others arc responsiblc for the death of his son, hence, he requested to take necessary action. Based on the same, the prcsent crirne was ..,J-:!-. registered for the aforesaid oflences

4.1 Learne<l counsel for the pctitioncr sut;rrr:ttccl that the petitioner hzrs not comrrrittcd any olTcn(:( tnd he was falsely implicatecl in Lhe present crimc onlJ/ orr the groLrnd thal the pctiti()ncr is own brother of accusr-tl No. I and he never harassed the dcccased or insligatecl lrirn Lo cornrnit suicide. Hence, the ingredients of Section lOr3 ()l'BNS are not attractcci against the petitioncr. L.lc furrit,;r submitted that accuscd No.1 and tltc dcccirscd .rr-c residing scparatcly and tl-rerc arc maLrlmonial clispr-rtcs pencling bctween thern ancl accuscd No.'l filr:cl IJI\,T()p No.243 of 2023 on the file of learned Senior Civil .Judg,', Narsaraopet seeking dissolution of rlarriage and thc szri<l czrsc is pcnding.

4.2 He further sr.rbmitted that thc petitr,rner lodged a con-rplair-rt ltclorc Narsarrtopet II 'I-or,'",r-r l)<>1j,. r. Statton and the sarne was registered against thc clcceer:rcil son of the de facto cornplainant in crime No.36 of 2r)25 for thc oflences punishable und.er Sections I l S(2) rrrrd 1 1g(1) of the BNS. Hc erlso submitted that in thc suir:irtc note a1so, there are no allegations against the petif oner that he instigated the deceased to comrnit suricidc :tnd thc entire (* 'I I 1 4 a-llegations in the cornplair-rt or in the suicide note arc against accused No.l only. Accuscd No'3 was already eniarged on bail pursuant to thc ordcrs passcd by this Court in Crirninal Petition No.6365 of 2025 on

07.O5.2025. The pctitioner is cking out his livelihood by doing private job and hc is rcady and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abidc by the conditions which are going to be irnposed by this Court. The petitioner is having minor chilclren aud he has to look after his family as r.r'cll ;ts l-tis olcl agccl tnothcr, rvho is accused No.3. Hencc, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Per contra, lcart-rcrl Ariclitionzrl Public Prosecutor

5. submitted that thc petitioner has committed the grave offence and there are scriotts and specific allegations against the petitioner and accuscd Nos.l, 4 Lo 6 are absconding frorn lhe date of registration of the present crime i.e. 09.O4.2025. This Court granted anticipatory bail in respect of accused No.3 only taking into consideration of her old age and the investrgation is under progress. If the petitioncr is granLed anticipatory bail, he will interfere with the investigation and also influence the ) witnesses. Ilence the petitioncr is not cr-rtit lr:rl Iirr grant of anticipatory bai1. I 6 Having considercd the rival sult; rrir.;sions rnade by ttre rcspectivc partics and aftcr perusal r>l lhe matcrial ar.:rilablc on record, it reveals that thcr',: :rr-r: specific allegations levcllcd against thc petition(, r. erncl in the complaint, the role of the petitioncr w-i ts s peciflcally me ntioned to cortnect him $,ith thc ofh:r rc.-:. Lcerrnecl Adclitional Public ProsecuLor placcd Lltc r,r,ritten insLrr-rctions fumisltcd by thc Sub lnspr:r ti.)r' ()f Policc, Vaniesthalipr.rram Policc Station datccl ()l .(_t/.)O')-5, u.hictr shows that only three witnesses were cxantirrecl ancl the rnvcstigation is uncler progress and accuscr I I'Jos. I , 4to6 I t \\'ercl absconding. The recorcl furthcr r(:r crrls that thc petitioner al<>ng wtLh accuscd Nos.l etncl ,., approacl-red this Court and filcd Criminal Petition No.,'ri;65 of 2025 I I sceking anticipatory bail and this Court rlir;misscd thc application irr respect of accused Nos. I artr I a ncl in the pecr-rliar circumslances, this Court grantr.rl ar.rticipatory bail in favor-rr of accuscd No.3, who is nr ther of thc pctitioner, orr thc ground that she was :r13r'C 70 years Mercly becaursc grare ting of anticipat.or-y Lx il Lo z,rccuscd 1; l l I 6 No.3 is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts and 7. circurnstances of thc case and also grzrvity of the offencc' this Court is not inclined to granl anticipatory bail to the petitioner. a Accordingly, the Criminal Pctition is dismissed Asa seqr-rel thereto, miscellaneous appiications' if any, pending in this petition stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. PRATHIMA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District

2. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda District

3. One CC to SRI M P K ADITYA Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies VM/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8093 ot 2025 ,/. , .,1' ,'.,, \ ,,,.-\ ,'i :; I -, r 'il '\.+\ ?:3 SEP 2l[i ' ';.'.' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \