1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.75 of 2026 of Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).
2. Mr.Vutupalli Rajanna, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the Police. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is further urged that if the Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood of her absconding and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On a perusal of the record, the deceased, who is the daughter of Respondent No.2, had been suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The medical record prima facie discloses that she was undergoing treatment as an outpatient from 29.10.2018 to 17.06.2025. It is further revealed that there were irregularities in medication compliance and follow-up consultations. She was also advised inpatient admission for a certain period at Venkateswara Institute of Psychiatry. The doctors at the said Institute diagnosed her condition as Paranoid Schizophrenia (F20.0). The patient continued to attend regular follow-up consultations along with her family members till 12.06.2026.
6. This Court, on 28.07.2026, for the aforesaid reasons, directed the Petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and cooperated with the investigation. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also confirmed the same.
7. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are the sons of Accused No.2. Accused No.2/Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased took place on 12.03.2020. On 02.04.2026, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. At the relevant point of time, the deceased and the Petitioner were not residing under the same roof.
8. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Savitri Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra ((2009) 8 SCC 325), at paragraph No.20 held as under:
“20. Keeping in view the Reports of the Law Commission, Section 438 was inserted in the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 438 enacts that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or to the Court of Session for a direction that in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail. Sub-section (2) empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to impose conditions enumerated therein. Sub-section (3) states that if such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, he shall be released on bail.”
8. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ((1980) 2 SCC 565), at paragraph No.14 held as under:
“14. Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two cases are alike on facts and therefore, courts have to be allowed a little free play in the joints if the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly, these are higher courts manned by experienced persons, secondly, their orders are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be exercised by courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able to take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges. While dealing with the necessity for preserving judicial discretion unhampered by rules of general application Earl Loreburn, L.C. said in Hyman v. Rose [1912 AC 623] :
“I desire in the first instance to point out that the discretion given by the section is very wide. . . . Now it seems to me that when the Act is so expressed to provide a wide discretion, ... it is not advisable to lay down any rigid rules for guiding that discretion. I do not doubt that the rules enunciated by the Master of the Rolls in the present case are useful maxims in general, and that in general they reflect the point of view from which judges would regard an application for relief. But I think it ought to be distinctly understood that there may be cases in which any or all of them may be disregarded. If it were otherwise, the free discretion given by the statute would be fettered by limitations which have nowhere been enacted. It is one thing to decide what is the true meaning of the language contained in an Act of Parliament. It is quite a different thing to place conditions upon a free discretion entrusted by statute to the court where the conditions are not based upon statutory enactment at all. It is not safe, I think, to say that the court must and will always insist upon certain things when the Act does not require them, and the facts of some unforeseen case may make the court wish it had kept a free hand.”
9. In Mahender Rani Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005 SCC OnLine Del 148), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 held as under:
3. In the present case however, I find that first of all there was no rejection on merits of the bail application. The application itself had been withdrawn and the same was recorded in the order dated 21-5-2004. Secondly, in the case before the Supreme Court the second bail application was considered only within one month of the first application having been rejected. In the present case, the withdrawal of the earlier bail application was made on 21-5-2004 i.e. almost eight months ago. The second case that was relied upon by the learned counsel for the State pertains to the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of the father-in-law. There the Supreme Court observed in the facts of that case that the High Court ought not to exercise its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter of this nature. It is true that there is no compulsion on the High Court to grant or not to grant anticipatory bail and the facts of each case have to be considered before a bail application is accepted or rejected. In the case before the Supreme Court the unnatural death had occurred in the matrimonial home itself and the allegations appeared to be severe and there appear to be a live link between the fact of cruelty based on dowry demand on the part of the accused therein and the death of the victim. However, in the present case, I find that at least insofar as the mother-in-law (present petitioner) is concerned, for a period of one month during which the petitioner was in paternal home, there was no contact between her and the deceased and the allegation in the FIR are in respect of the husband who is already in custody.
5. As noted above, prima facie, there does not appear to be a proximate or live link between the conduct of the present petitioner and the death of the victim. Accordingly, this is the fit case in which anticipatory bail ought to be granted. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. It goes without saying that she shall continue to join investigation as and when directed by the Investigation Officer.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.2, with some stringent 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 each 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 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.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
v. 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.
vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If she claims that she does not have passport, she shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
