AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondents.
The case of the petitioners is that petitioners are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of Smt.Velagapudi Manaswitha – the de facto complainant. Due to matrimonial disputes, on 19.02.2026, the petitioner No.1 filed a private complaint before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the de facto complainant, based on which Crime No.298 of 2026 was registered. Petition No.1 also filed FCOP No.250 of 2026 for divorce at Hyderabad. Thereafter, the de facto complainant has obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P No.2029 of 2026 before the High Court for the State of Telangana. The State has thereafter applied for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) of BNSS for non-appearance of the de facto complainant before the Investigating Officer. The said proceedings were challenged by the de facto complainant in Crl.P.No.8621 of 2026 before the High Court for the State of Telangana to quash the said Crime No.298 of 2026 and in the said Criminal Petition, there was an interim direction not to take any coercive action against the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant has filed a complaint before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada and the same was returned. The de facto complainant also moved Transfer Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide T.P.(C) No.2252 of 2026 to transfer the divorce case from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. The de facto complainant again filed a complaint which was registered as Crime No.579 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 316(1), 74, 75(1), 77, 78(1)(i), 79, 308(2), 49, 351(1), 351(2), 324(4), 85 r/w 3(5) BNS, 3, 4 DPA.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that registration of the crime is a counter blast to the case filed by the petitioner No.1. He further submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and false allegations are leveled against them. Hence, they filed this application seeking relief of anticipatory bail. He further submits that police must record as to why arrest is necessary, where the punishment is up to seven years, and otherwise issue a notice of appearance under Section 35(3) BNSS. To the said contention, he placed reliance in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1, which was reaffirmed in Satender Kumar Anil v. CBI2 and Md.Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand3.
At this stage, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences registered against the petitioners are punishable below seven years and the authorities would follow the directions in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
Since the offences are punishable below seven years, the respondents shall follow the procedure contemplated under Section 35(3) BNSS and followed the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar (supra).
With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.