1. Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.190 of 2025 of PattabhipuramPolice Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections80(2) read with 3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS‟).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S. Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. They were falsely implicated in this case by Respondent No.2. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. They are ready to comply with any conditions that this Court may deem fit while enlarging them on bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is unmarried and the younger brother of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is 70 years old and the grandmother of Accused No.1. The baby child of the deceased and Accused No.1 is being taken care by Petitioner No.1, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that the accusation against the petitioners is well-founded. There are specific overt acts attributed against them, the investigation is at nascent stage, and material witnesses have not been examined. There was a note in the handwriting of the deceased about the incident that occurred in the case, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

6. Mr. Ravi Teja Dommeti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued while reiterating the contentions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and submitted that the deceased was a B.Tech graduate aged about 24 years. She was given in marriage to Accused No.1. Later, Accused No.1 and his relatives subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and demanded additional dowry. The deceased, in her handwriting, wrote a note mentioning certain dates of the incidents. A huge amount was taken towards dowry from Respondent No.2 by the petitioners, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

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

8. 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 Petitionersare entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

9. In Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P((2025) 4 SCC 172), the Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para Nos.17 & 18 observed that:

                  “17. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in granting bail to the respondent-accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated : when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness.

                  18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths.”

10. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ajwar v. Waseem((2024) 10 SCC 768) at Para No.26 and 27, it is held as under:

                  “26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118.

                  27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P. v. State of M.P. [P. v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)

                  “24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.‟”

11. As seen from the record, the marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased, Naga Sai Meghana, was performed on 12.02.2023. Before that, on 08.12.2022, a grand reception was arranged by Respondent No.2 for the engagement ceremony of Naga Sai Meghana and Accused No.1. Respondent No.2 alleges that gold ornaments worth Rs.20,00,000/- and cash of Rs.5,00,000/- were presented to Accused No.1 as per the demand of the petitioners.Later, Naga Sai Meghana and Accused No.1 were blessed with a baby child named Sai Siva Riyanshika. It was alleged that ever since the marriage, the petitioners and Accused No.1 harassed Naga Sai Meghana. Subsequently, the petitioners demanded registration of plots in favour of Accused No.1. After some time, Accused No.1 brought Naga Sai Meghana and their daughter, Sai Siva Riyanshika, to the house of Respondent No.2 and left them there, stating that unless Respondent No.2 met the demand for additional dowry, Accused No.1 would not take back Naga Sai Meghana and Sai Siva Riyanshika to his house.

12. There were some mediations held between the family of the accused and Naga Sai Meghana. However, those mediations were not fructified. While matters stood thus, on 02.05.2025 at about 05.00 AM, Naga Sai Meghana herself jumped from the apartment where she was living with her parents and committed suicide. It is important to note that Naga Sai Meghana committed suicide in her parents‟ house, to which she had been brought by Accused No.1 prior to the Ugadi festival of 2025, i.e., before 30thMarch 2025.

13. Naga Sai Meghana committed suicide on 02.05.2025, i.e., more than one and a half months after she was not residing with the petitioners in their house. Of course, within three years of the marriage, Naga Sai Meghana took the extreme step of ending her life. Accused No.1 was arrested and sent to judicial custody, and later, he was enlarged on bail. A note was found in the house of Respondent No.2, purportedly written by the deceased in her own handwriting, narrating certain circumstances. Nevertheless, those circumstances did not point to the guilt of any of the petitioners, nor did she write a suicide note against any of the petitioners, including her husband.

14. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 filed a memo in which the statement of Petitioner No.1 was also filed. In that statement, dated 02.05.2025, Petitioner No.1 voluntarily stated that if the petitioners, except Accused No.1, were excluded from implication in the case, she would return the gold ornaments worth Rs.20,00,000/-, cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, and silver articles worth Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased.She also voluntarily stated that 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to Petitioner No.1 would be safely kept for Sai Siva Riyanshika for her maintenance and well-being. She further assured that she would give agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Edara Village worth of Rs.1,60,00,000/-, and a plot admeasuring 151 sq. yards valued at Rs.81,00,000/- in Vasavi Nagar, Addanki. The total value of the above-mentioned immovable property was Rs.2,41,00,000/-.Petitioner No.1 also further volunteered that in case the value of the above-mentioned two properties was less than what she quoted, she would also write in favour of Sai Siva Riyanshika some more property. Petitioner No.1 further assured that she would keep Rs.70,00,000/- in a fixed deposit in a bank in favour of Sai Siva Riyanshika, showing Petitioner No.1 as nominee and Muvvala Mallikharjuna Rao, i.e., Respondent No.2, as another nominee. Whatever interest accrued on the above-mentioned fixed deposit would be provided to Sai Siva Riyanshika.The above statement was also given in the presence of elders, namely Subba Rao and Subba Ramayya, residents of Addanki, and in the presence of Shekar, Narasimha Rao, and Hanumantha Rao, residents of Guntur.

15. Indeed, Respondent No.2, in his complaint lodged with the police, mentioned that he had found Naga Sai Meghana died of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.

16. Sri P.V.Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as Petitioner No.1 allegedly had not complied with the assurances she gave to Respondent No.2 for the well-being of Sai Siva Riyanshika, Respondent No.2 took a U-turn and gave an improvised version in his second statement recorded under Section 161 of “the Cr.P.C.‟LW.1/de-facto complainant initially gave a statement that the petitioners and Accused No.1 were responsible for the suicide of his daughter. However, he further stated that the petitioners, i.e., the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and grandmother of Meghana, never demanded dowry from Naga Sai Meghana or her parents. They never subjected her to cruelty or harassment. It was only Accused No.1/Manikranth who demanded that Naga Sai Meghana bring additional dowry, get a plot executed in his favour, and physically and mentally harassed her.Surprisingly,LW.1/Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant was re- examined at a later point of time and took a complete U-turn against the petitioners. LW.11, an independent witness, spoke about the petitioners. In fact, the de-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 was working as a part-time accountant in the office, and his wife was also doing accountant work. As the de-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 was giving different versions with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioners, the statement was sought to be recorded at the request of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur, by the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Guntur. In that statement, Respondent No.2 spoke against the petitioners, alleging that they had also demanded additional dowry and subjected Naga Sai Meghana to cruelty and harassment, besides her husband, Accused No.1.

17. It is important to mention that from 02.05.2025, i.e., from the date of the suicide of Naga Sai Meghana, her daughter, Sai Siva Riyanshika, who is aged about 26 months, has been with Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2. Thus, it is the mother-in-law of the deceased alone who has been bringing up Sai Siva Riyanshika in her house. She alone has been taking care of the baby child, Sai Siva Riyanshika.Respondent No.2 and his wife have not evinced any interest in taking back Sai Siva Riyanshika. To that effect, no petition has been filed seeking custody or guardianship of Sai Siva Riyanshika by Respondent No.2. For the past five months, Sai Siva Riyanshika has been with Petitioner No.1.Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased, aged about 26 years. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is a 70-year- old widow,she is the mother-in-law of Petitioner No.1.The version of LW.1 has been changed from time to time, as Petitioner No.1 had not honoured her statement given on 02.05.2025.

18. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner No.3/Accused No.4, who is aged about 70 years.

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

                  i. In the event of arrest of the Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4, she shall be enlarged on bail subject to her executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.

                  ii. The Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and make herself available for investigation as and when required.

20. With regard to the allegations levelled against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.Hence, the Petition against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.

21. However, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging them on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Judge may endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by affording due and sufficient opportunity to both sides and pass appropriate orders within a preferrable period of one (01)week.