1. Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2 to 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026 of V. Kota Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 80(2) read with and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS‟) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(for brevity “the D.P. Act‟).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to Accused No.1 in 2021 and dowry was given at the time of marriage. After the birth of two female children, the accused harassed her for additional dowry and for not bearing a male child, and threatened a second marriage. On 05.01.2026, the accused allegedly strangulated her by hanging with a chunni in her bedroom. The complainant, mother of the deceased, lodged a report on the same day. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 4.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

3. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence. It is submitted that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled by the de-facto complainant against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is the brother of Accused No.1, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the mother, and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is the father of Accused No.1. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased was solemnized on 30.04.2021, and they lived together and were blessed with two female children. The learned Counsel submits that the Petitioners never harassed or humiliated the deceased. Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is employed in DCC Bank, and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is working as a sweeper. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are law-abiding citizens having permanent places of residence. The Petitioners are willing to comply with any conditions that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. They undertake to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assure the Court of their availability as and when required. It is also submitted that Accused No.1 has already been arrested and subsequently released on bail by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Chittoor and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

4. Per contra, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, has strenuously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, contending that within seven years of the marriage between the deceased and Accused No.1, the Petitioners, along with Accused No.1, subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment by demanding additional dowry. It is further submitted that the accused not only made persistent demands for additional dowry but also subjected the deceased to both physical and mental harassment. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that, unable to meet the unlawful demands, the deceased was driven to severe mental distress and was ultimately instigated to commit suicide.

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

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

6. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

ANALYSIS:

7. As seen from the averments in the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased, namely Swetha, it is alleged that the marriage between her daughter, Meghana, and Accused No.1 was solemnized on 30.04.2021. At the time of marriage, dowry and valuable gold ornaments were given. It is further stated that the deceased and Accused No.1 were blessed with two female children. However, as no male child was born, the Petitioners allegedly proposed that Accused No.1 should contract a second marriage. It is also alleged that the Petitioners subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment by demanding additional dowry and, in that process, caused physical and mental harassment to her. The de-facto complainant further alleges that her daughter informed her about the said harassment. Despite placing the matter before elders for mediation, no amicable resolution could be reached. Unable to bear the continuous cruelty and harassment meted out by the Petitioners, the deceased ultimately resorted to the extreme step of ending her life by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with a cloth. It is also stated that Accused No.4 informed the de-facto complainant over phone about the death of her daughter. Therefore, specific overt acts are attributed to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.2 to 4. It is well settled in law, as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme 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), that the grant of anticipatory bail does not amount to a charter for commission of serious offences, nor does it serve as a cloak of immunity for individuals against whom specific and prima facie cognizable allegations have been levelled. The relief under Section 482 of   the BNSS‟ is intended to safeguard personal liberty, but not to thwart the legitimate course of investigation or to protect those who are prima facie complicit in grave offences involving overt acts.

CONCLUSION:

8. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, coupled with the nature and gravity of the specific allegations attributed to the Petitioners, this Court finds no justifiable ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of “the BNSS‟. The allegations prima facie discloses a serious offence warranting thorough investigation, and the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit the relief of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

9. Hence, this criminal petition is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners urges this Court to pass an order directing the petitioners to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

10. 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 petitioners cannot be entertained.