in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in F.I.R. No.57 of 2026, dated 05.03.2026 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru District)

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No.57 of 2026, dated 05.03.2026 on the file of Pedavegi Police Station, Eluru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 331(1), 351(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”).

2. Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prior to 05.03.2026, the parents of the de facto complainant purchased a house site measuring 233.3 square yards in R.S. No. 85/5, Plot No. 24 at Vanguru Village in 2009, in her name, and she along with her husband constructed a house thereon and have been residing in it; in August 2024, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of her parents considering their old age, and since then they have been residing together in the said house; it is alleged that after his marriage, her son, acting under the influence of his wife and her parents, began harassing the complainant and her husband, and on 25.06.2025, the accused along with their associates forcibly entered the house, attempted to dispossess them and illegally occupy the property, and further produced a forged agreement dated 01.02.2025 claiming that the complainant and her husband had agreed to sell the house and certain agricultural lands, and issued a legal notice seeking registration of the property in favour of her son, though the complainant asserts that she never executed any such agreement and that the signatures therein are forged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant is the mother of accused No. 1 and that the dispute has arisen out of a misunderstanding and strained relationship between the complainant, her son, and daughter-in-law due to their love marriage and with regard to certain family properties. The petitioners are all family members. It is contended that the complainant is attempting to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. The petitioner No. 1 is the son of the complainant, and petitioner No. 2 is his wife, while petitioner Nos. 3 to 6, are relatives and acquaintances who have been unnecessarily implicated in the present case without any basis. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners except general and omnibus allegations. He would further submit that the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is pregnant and her due date is 06.04.2026 i.e., today. The defacto complainant gave reply to the said legal notice after a period of one year and that too at the time of registration of present crime. Except for Section 338 of the BNS, all the other alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He finally prays to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, involving forgery of documents and an attempt to unlawfully dispossess the complainant from her property. She contended that there are specific accusations against the petitioners and the investigation is still at a crucial stage. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation and enable the petitioners to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute appears to have arose out of family and property issues. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties, and the fact that most of the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 6 on the following stringent conditions;

                  i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within a period of one (1) week from the date of this order and shall furnish personal bonds for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court;

                  ii. On release, the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, once in a week i.e., on every Sunday, between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, till filing of charge sheet.

                  iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation.

                  iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

                  v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Court concerned. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Court concerned.

                  vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, shall not leave the country, without express permission from the concerned Court.

                  vii. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 shall not, directly or indirectly, disturb, harass, or threaten the complainant or any member of her family in any manner.

7. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

8. 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 case.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

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