logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 575 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 2727 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Parties : Javvadi Naga Venkata Bhavani Prasad Alias Durga Prasad & Another Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd By It\'s Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P. Amaravati & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: D.V.V.S.S.N.H. Bhujanga Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 16-04-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 437/438/439/482 -
Judgment :-

(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 Court pleased to enlarge Petitioners (Accused 1 & 2) on bail in relation to Crime No.44 of 2026 of Narasapuram Town P.S, to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, Westgodavari District)

1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioners herein/Accused Nos. 1 and 2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.44 of 2026 of Narasapuram Town P.S, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short “BNS”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the deceased who had resumed her intermediate studies after failing earlier came into contact with A1 through visits to local prayer hall and he began professing love, repeatedly threatening to kill himself if she does not reciprocate. Despite objections from A1’s parents and attempts to stop contact, A1 continued to pursue and pressure her even providing her with a mobile phone. Later, A1 along with his maternal uncle who is A2, confronted and harshly questioned her before elders, publicly humiliating her by accusing her of lying and telling her she could die, if she could not stop, after which, distressed and unable to bear humiliation, she returned home and committed suicide by hanging.

3. Heard Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the notice is served on the defacto complainant through Police. None appeared for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is 2nd bail application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are innocent and have no involvement in the alleged offence. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 24.02.2026, and their continued incarceration is wholly unjustified, especially when no prima facie material exists against them. The Accused No.1 is a student, pursuing B.Pharmacy and the Accused No.2 is the maternal uncle of the Accused No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that by this time, crucial part of the investigation might have been completed and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally prays to allow the petition by imposing any conditions.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that this is a case of abetment of suicide by subjecting the deceased to public humiliation. She would further submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 in Crl.P.No.2157 of 2026.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 24.02.2026. Accused No.1 is a student and Accused No.2 is the maternal uncle of Accused No.1, and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The question as to whether they abetted the deceased to commit suicide cannot be decided at this stage. Further, the crucial part of the investigation is already over, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody any longer.

7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail on the following conditions:

                  i. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapuram.

                  ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence nor influence, intimidate, or induce any prosecution witness.

                  iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the concerned Court.

                  iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the country without the express permission from the concerned Court.

                  v. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Saturday, between 10.00 AM to 05.00 PM., till filing of charge sheet.

                  vi. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation.

8. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

9. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and they shall not be construed as opinion on the merits of the Crime.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal