Potharaveni Galavva & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 961 of 2026 of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Malkajgiri Police Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 80 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

Heard Mr. Pulimamidi Rohith Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.07.2026, the de facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a report stating that his daughter had been suffering from stomach pain for the preceding few days. On 04.07.2026, due to unbearable pain, she allegedly consumed acid that was kept in the house. Upon noticing the same, her husband shifted her to a hospital for treatment; however, she succumbed to her injuries. While asserting that his daughter's death was attributable to stomach pain and expressing no suspicion against any person, the de facto complainant requested that the dead body be handed over to the family. Basing on this report a crime has been registered.

However, after a lapse of 20 days, the de facto complainant lodged another report alleging that the deceased had married Accused No.1 and that, at the time of marriage, a tin-roofed house at Malkajgiri, an open plot measuring 120 square yards, and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash were given as dowry. It is further alleged that the monthly rental income of Rs.8,500/- from the tin-roofed house had been paid to Accused No.1 since the marriage. The couple was thereafter blessed with children.

According to the subsequent complaint, Accused No.1 physically and mentally harassed the deceased by demanding additional dowry, insisting that the tin-roofed house be registered in his name or sold and the sale proceeds paid to him, compelling her to resign from her work-from-home employment, and even harassed suspecting her character. Although the de facto complainant and family members repeatedly pacified the deceased, it is alleged that, recently, the present petitioners, along with Accused No.1, also demanded registration of the house and continued to harass her for additional dowry. Despite the de facto complainant expressing his inability to transfer the house, stating that it was their only property and belonged to their brother-in-law, and offering to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, the harassment allegedly continued, driving the deceased to commit suicide by consuming acid. Based on the said report, a crime came to be registered.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have never been involved in the alleged offence, much less in demanding additional dowry, as alleged by the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is suffering from age-related ailments, while petitioner No.2 was married 2017 and has since been residing separately with her own family. It is contended that the allegations made by the de facto complainant are vague, omnibus in nature, and devoid of specific particulars. Learned counsel further submits that, in the initial report, the de facto complainant himself categorically stated that he had no suspicion against anyone and made no allegation regarding harassment or demand for additional dowry. It is argued that, since no settlement could be reached regarding the future of the deceased's children, the present false case has been foisted solely to harass the petitioners. Nevertheless, the petitioners express their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and that, in the statement of the de facto complainant, their names have been specifically mentioned and overt acts have been attributed to them. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that, as on date, sixteen witnesses have been examined. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the presence of the petitioners may be required for the purpose of effective investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.

The allegations against the petitioners are that, along with Accused No.1, they subjected the deceased, who is the daughter of the de facto complainant, to physical and mental harassment by demanding additional dowry and insisting that the tin-roofed house be either registered in the name of Accused No.1 or sold and the sale proceeds paid to him.

At this stage, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the truthfulness or sustainability of the allegations or to evaluate the evidence on its merits. The jurisdiction is preventive in nature and is intended to protect an individual from unnecessary arrest while ensuring that a fair and effective investigation is not impeded. The Court is required to strike a balance between the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and the societal interest in a fair investigation.

The parameters governing the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail stand authoritatively laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, wherein it was held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to safeguard personal liberty and that no inflexible or straitjacket formula can govern its exercise. The Court must consider, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation.

Likewise, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically held that arrest should not be effected as a matter of course merely because the offence is cognizable. The investigating agency is duty-bound to justify the necessity for arrest, and custodial interrogation must be resorted to only where it is genuinely warranted by the facts of the case.

In the light of the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioners, and their expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and in the absence of any material indicating that they are likely to abscond, influence witnesses, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or evade the process of law, this Court is of the considered view that their custodial interrogation does not appear to be indispensable at this stage. Consequently, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction to extend the protection of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions to ensure their effective cooperation with the investigation and to safeguard the interests of justice.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

It is made clear that any observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.