(Prayer: 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 CourtPleased to grant Bail to the petitioner/Accused no.3 by directing the police to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with CrimeNo. 64 of 2025 on the file of Mogalthuru P.S, West Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass)

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.64 of 2025 of Mogalthuru Police Station, West Godavari District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 108, 78(1)(i) r/w. 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2025 at about 7.00 am near Digital building, PM Lanka Village, Narsapur Mandal the complainant’s wife committed suicide by hanging with saree to the ceiling hook. As per the case dairy, the complainant came to know through neighbours about the harassment caused by the accused persons on the night before the suicide and also about their previous acts of sexual harassment and threats towards the deceased.

4. Mr. Dasari S.V.V.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 submits that the FIR was originally registered on 06.03.2025 on the head of suspicious death of the wife of defacto complainant on 02.03.2025. FIR was altered on 06.01.2026 from Section 194 BNSS to Sections 108, 78(1)(i) r/w. 3(5) BNS. The petitioner has been working as a private employee in Indus Projects Private Ltd., Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner had not committed any offence. He was falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients of abatement to commit suicide are not attracting to the case and urged to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. He is willing to abide by any condition which this Court deems fit while enlarging the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner even by the deceased informed the same to her neighbours. Investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses have to be examined and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

               “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

8. As seen from the record, there are specific over acts attributed against the petitioner and pre-arrest bail is not a shield or protection to the persons against whom specific allegations are attributed. The defacto complainant’s wife died on 02.03.2025. The FIR was registered on 06.03.2025 on the head of suspicious death. Later nearly after eight months i.e., on 06.01.2026, the FIR altered from 194 BNS to 108, 78(1)(i) r/w. 3(5) BNS. Accused Nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 08.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 75(1)(ii), 79, 108 r/w. 3(5) of BNS and later they were enlarged on bail. No doubt the petitioner has been working as private employee i.e., working supervisor in Indus Projects Private Ltd., Uttar Pradesh. The witness of prosecution LWs.17 to 19 gave statements against the petitioner that the petitioner and accused Nos.1 & 2 had been harassed the wife of the defacto complainant to give certain sexual favours. The deceased was living lonely with two minor children in the absence of her husband who has been working at far distance from the village. It is alleged that the petitioner and accused Nos.1 & 2 harassed the deceased for sexual favours. They also threatened that if the deceased failed to meet their demands, they would spread false allegations in the village alleging illicit relations, thereby damaging her dignity and reputation. It is also further revealed in investigation that deceased Ponnala Lakshmi disclosed all the above mentioned facts to her neighbours.

9. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail as it would amount to granting protection or shield to the persons against whom specific allegations are levelled, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1). Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to pass an order directing the petitioner to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

11. This Court refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine SC 676), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. In view of the law laid down in Om Prakash Chhawnika (supra), the request of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained.