Muthu Prasad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

T Mallikarjuna Rao, J

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A5, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.49 of 2025 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 351(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.2025 at 10.30 p.m., the complainant, husband of the deceased Suguna, reported an incident at their home, which was filed on 07.03.2025 at 10.00 a.m. The complainant stated that his wife had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from a marginally noted accused and had been paying Rs.20,000/- per month as interest. The loan was later cleared, but the accused escalated the loan amount to Rs.30,00,000/-, citing compound interest. The accused also threatened to ruin the family’s reputation and harm the husband if the debt was not repaid. Additionally, A2 borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the A1 in the name of the deceased and pressured her to pay the interest. On 06.03.2025, the complainant kept Rs.1,00,000/- in the house, went to the Fishing Harbour, and returned at 8.00 p.m. He found the accused at his home, but his wife was missing. When questioned, they claimed she hadn’t repaid the loan. The complainant noticed Rs.1,00,000/- was missing and sent the accused away, stating his wife had gone to their house. At 10.00 p.m., unable to reach his wife, he contacted the A1, who confirmed his wife hadn’t arrived there. After 10 minutes, he received a phone call from them stating that his wife committed suicide to the ceiling fan in their house. Immediately, he along with his brother-in-law rushed to spot at 10.45 p.m. and noticed his wife was found hanging to ceiling fan and hence he lodged report that the unable to bear the torture/harassment mounted by the accused, deceased took extreme step of committed suicide in accused house and ended her life.

Heard. Perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the based on the confessional statement of A1, this case came to be registered against the petitioner/A5, whose name was wrongly mentioned as Raj Kumar in the FIR and to his actual name is Muthu Prasad. It is further submitted that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to A3 and A4 as per the Orders in Crl.P.No.3096 of 2025, dated 28.03.2025. The facts relating to the present petitioner/A5, are also on the same footing as those of A3 and A4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the investigation has not completed. This Court has perused the orders passed in Crl.P.No.3096 of 2025, dated 28.03.2025, and finds that the facts pertaining to the petitioner/A5, are similar to those of A3 & A4, who were granted anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A5, on the same terms and conditions.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A5 subject to his surrender before the investigating officer concerned within two (02) weeks from today. On such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating officer. Upon his release, the petitioner is mandated to adhere to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner/A5 is directed to appear before the concerned investigating officer, twice in a week i.e., on every Sunday and Wednesday between 10.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., for a period of three (03) months or till filing the charge sheet, whichever is earlier; and

(ii) The petitioner/A5 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any investigating or police officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial will proceed independently of the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application.