1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.139 of 2026 of Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, West Godavari District, was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Sunitha, was married to Accused No.1 on 10.12.2012, and both were working in the Postal Department while residing at Narasayya Agraharam, Bhimavaram. It is alleged that Accused No.1 developed an illicit relationship with Accused No.2, a co-worker, and, on account of the same, subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty. The prosecution further alleges that Accused No.1 repeatedly abused the deceased, asked her to die, and instigated her to commit suicide, despite intervention by her family members. Unable to bear the alleged harassment and provocation, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan in her house on 01.07.2026. Based on the report lodged by the mother of the deceased on 02.07.2026, the police registered the present crime against the accused for the offences alleged.

3. Mr.Gunda Gopi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated by the police. He contends that the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific overt acts constituting the alleged offences. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner intentionally instigated, aided, or abetted the deceased to commit suicide so as to attract the offence of abetment under law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the prosecution case is founded on mere suspicion and that the alleged illicit relationship, even if assumed to be true, cannot by itself constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of subjecting the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that the material collected in the course of investigation prima facie discloses the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that she may abscond or influence the witnesses, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, Mr.K.Naga Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application, adopting and concurring with the submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. He contended that the petitioner subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that, having regard to the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Accordingly, he prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

9. As seen from the record, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2. The petitioner is a female aged about 31 years. She is working as a Multi-Tasking Staff in the Postal Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a colleague of Accused No.1. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner/Accused No.2 is the concubine of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 and the deceased are husband and wife. The wife of Accused No.1 committed suicide allegedly due to the cruelty and harassment meted out to her. Accused No.1 was granted bail by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Bhimavaram, in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2026, vide order dated 20.07.2026. There are no direct allegations that the petitioner/Accused No.2 instigated the wife of Accused No.1 to commit suicide. The petitioner is a permanent resident of West Godavari District and she has got fixed abode.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the alleged role attributed to her in the commission of the offence, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  i. In the event of her arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

                  ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make herself available for investigation as and when required;

                  iii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  iv. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

                  v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

                  vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.