G.Chandramouleswari

1

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE:

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT:-SMT G. PRIYADARSINI,

XIV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AMALAPURAM

I/C II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P. NO.38/2026 IN CR.NO.80/2026 OF

MALIKIPURAM PO LICE STATION

Between:

Bandaru Nagaraju, S/o.Musalayya, Age 40 years, AVS Colony, Marripeta, Gudimellanka Village, Malikipuram Mandal.

... Petitioner./Accused

And

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Malikipuram P.S. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

...Respondent / Complainant

This petition is coming on 14.05.2026 before this court for hearing in the presence of Sri Ponnada Surya Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/ Accused and of Sri A.V.S.Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and upon perusing the record, this Court made the following :-

R O D E R

01.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

02.This is a bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused under

Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.80/2026 of

Malikipuram Police Station for the offense punishable under Section

U/s.109(2) of BNS.

03. The Addl. Public Prosecutor received the notice, opposed the bail of the petitioner/Accused.

2

04.In brief, on 1-5-2026 the defacto-complainant/Eeda Satyanarayana gave a report to the Police that Bandaru Nagaraju/Accused is residing in the village with his family and his elder sister/Vijaya Kumari is in live-in- relationship with one Polinati Yousaf Raju/Victim. The accused/Bandaru

Nagaraju is came to know that Polinati Yousaf Raju is abusing his elder sister both mentally and physically, so he brought his sister back to his house. On 1.5.2026 Polinati Yousaf Raju went to the house of Bandaru

Nagaraju and poured petrol in the house and on the bike and set fire by abusing Nagaraju. So, the said Nagaraju ran towards the said Polinati

Yousaf Raju by shouting “Lanja Kodaka Nuvvu Champadam Kadura,

Nene ninnu champuthanu” by saying that he attacked Polinati Yousaf

Raju on his chest with a stick and attacked him with a knife on the face causing severe bleeding injuries on the jaw and on the face. As a result

Polinati Yousaf Raju fell down with bleeding injuries. On knowing that the defacto-complainant rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to Area

Government Hospital, Razole and later he gave report to the Malikipuram

P.S and so the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malikipuram P.S. registered the report as a case in Cr.No.80/2026 under Section 109(2) of BNS. Hence, this petition.

05.The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused submitted that: 1) The

Petitioner/Accused is a permanent resident and he is residing along with his family and he is working as a tractor driver. 2) The Petitioner/accused submitted that the above crime is registered by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner/accused falsely alleging that, the petitioner/accused committed an offence under Section 109(2) of BNS. 3) The

Petitioner/accused submitted that one Polinati Yusaf Raju trapped married sister of petitioner/accused namely Vijayakumari and developed illegal contacts and took her to the house of said Polinati Yusaf Raju. Said

Vijayakumari is physically handicapped. 4) The Petitioner/accused submitted 3 that in the early morning of 01-05-2026 the sister of the Petitioner/accused namely said Vijayakumari came to the house of the Petitioner/accused and informed that she was treated in the hands of said Polinati Yusaf Raju and he is harassing her in several ways and squeezing her monthly pension and since she is unable to bear the harassment, came to the house of

Petitioner/accused and requested the petitioner/accused to allow her to stay in his house. The petitioner/accused did not object for the request of his sister. 5) The Petitioner/accused submitted that at about 6 p.m on the same day, said Polinati Yusaf Raju along with 3 other unknown persons who are in intoxication came to the house of the petitioner/accused and created a terror and abused the petitioner/accused, his sister and other family members and threatened to kill and poured petrol in to the house and also on the bike of the petitioner/accused and lit fire. The petitioner/accused and others put of the flames. The petitioner/accused gave a call to the Malikipuram Police and complained against the highhanded acts of said Polinati Yusaf Raju and three others and when police called him to present report, the petitioner/accused rushed to the police station along with his family members and gave a statement. 6) The Petitioner/accused submitted that after return of petitioner/accused and family members from the police station, the sister of petitioner/accused namely Vijaykumari informed that a galata was took place between the petitioner/accused and other three persons and the said

Polinati Yusaf Raju and other sustained injuries and they were taken to hospital by van. 7) Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malikipuram along with the staff visited the house of petitioner/accused and noted the traces of fire and burning of motor bike seat etc., and ask the petitioner/accused to come to police station and accordingly the petitioner/accused accompanied the police. 8) The Petitioner/accused submitted that since than the petitioner/accused detained in police station and ultimately produced before the Court on 4.5.2026 alleging that, the petitioner/accused committed offence against said Polinati Yusaf Raju. 9) 4

The Petitioner/accused submitted that said Polinati Yusaf Raju is a poster by profession and having much political influence and support of rowdy elements. The Petitioner/accused roped in above crime for the reasons best known to the respondent/complainant being influenced by said Polinati Yusaf

Raju and other and by suppression of truth. The petitioner/accused did not commit any offence as alleged. 10) The petitioner/accused is suffering with neurological decease and suffering with deceased of fits. The petitioner/accused is also suffering with highpertensive and diabetic and taking treatments for his aliments since 2019 and he is on regular medication. He took treatment from various hospitals and available copies of lab reports prescription of medicines etc., are filed. 11) The petitioner/accused was roped into the above crime alleging that the petitioner/accused committed offence under section 109(2) of BNS. The respondent/police being influenced by the defacto-complainant without proper investigation roped the petitioner/accused into above crime, without any report or statement of alleged injured. Though there are no ingredients to attract section 109(2) of BNS against the petitioner/accused, the police purposefully registered a case against the petitioner/accused alleging that he committed offence under section. 12) The petitioner/accused will not evade or abscond from the jurisdiction of the Honble Court during pendency of trial and enquiry of the above referred case. The petitioner/accused will not interfere with the process of further investigation if any and the petitioner/accused will obey the directions of the Honble Court on the event of considering the bail application and release him on bail. The petitioner/accused submitted that in the remand report, it was falsely referred that the petitioner/accused was arrested on 4.5.2026 at his house around 10 a.m. But in fact, the petitioner/accused was detained by the police since 1.5.2026 at around 10 p.m. 14) There are two respectable persons willing to stand as sureties for due production of the petitioner/accused as and when directed by the Honble Court, on the even of enlarging the petitioner/accused 5 on bail. The petitioner/accused is permanent resident of Gudimellanka and residing with his family. 15) No similar bail application or any other bail application is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused in connection with above crime in any court and no such application is pending. 16) The petitioner/accused submitted that the Honble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed, that the Honble Court feels dims fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of criminal administration of justice.

06.The point for consideration is :

“Whether the Petitioner/ Accused is entitled for bail as prayed

for?”

07. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the petitioner/accused .

08.The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the petitioner/accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the Counsel for the petitioner/accused is prayed to allow this petition.

09.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. On perusal of CD and other material available in record, In brief, the alleged offence is attempt to murder and it was occurred on 01.05.2026. The defacto complainant / Eeda Satya narayana gave a report that Polinati Yusaf Raju is in live-in-relationship with the sister of the accused. Accused came to know that Polinati Yusaf Raju harassed his sister mentally and physically. So he brought his sister back to his house.

So the Polinati Yusuf Raju went to the accused house and set fire by pouring petrol in the house and bike of the accused. On that the accused by shouting “Lanja Kodaka Nuvvu Champadam Kadura, Nene ninnu 6 champuthanu” by saying that he attacked Polinati Yousaf Raju on his chest with a stick and attacked him with a knife on the face causing severe bleeding injuries on the jaw and on the face. As a result Polinati Yousaf

Raju fell down with bleeding injuries. It shows that there is a prima facie case made out against petitioner/accused.

On perusal of the Case Diary the investigation is at threshold stage and some more witnesses are to be examined. So it seems that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, at this stage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may escape from the jurisdiction of this court and may induce, coerce or threaten the victim and witnesses and there may be possibility to tamper the evidence. When the investigation is at threshold stage and by perusing the contents of the report and case dairy and in view of the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused , this court feels that it is not a fit case to consider the bail application of the petitioner/accused. Accordingly the point is answered.

12. IN THE RESULT, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15thday of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.G.Priyadarsini

XIV AdditionalSessions Judge, I/C II ASJ, Amalapuram.

1

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE:

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT:-SMT G. PRIYADARSINI,

XIV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, AMALAPURAM

I/C II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram. Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P. NO.35/2026 IN CR.NO.86/2026 OF

AMALAPURAM TALUKA PO LICE STATION

Between:

Partamsetti Adinarayana @ Pattamsetti Adinarayana, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 55 years, Door No.1-62, Gudigalla Bhaga, Balantram, K.Gangavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

And

S.H.O., Amalapuram Taluka P.S., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor.

... Respondent/Complianant.

This petition is coming on 14.05.2026 before this court for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Venkateswararao, Advocate for Petitioner / Accused

No.1 and of Sri A.V.S.Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and upon perusing the record, this Court made the following :-

R O D E R

01.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused 1 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

02.This is a Anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused 1 under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.86/2026 of

Amalapuram Taluka Police Station for the offense punishable under

Section U/s.34(a) of A.P. Exice Act.

03. The Addl. Public Prosecutor received the notice, opposed the bail of the petitioner/Accused 1.

04.In brief, on 30.04.2026 at 2.00 PM, basing on information about transport of illicit liquor, Amalapuram Taluka P.S. along with his staff 2 proceeded to the near house of Rajalapudi Rajesh in Kamanaguruvu

Village, and stopped a car which was arrived there. Immediately the S.I of

Police of Amalapuram Taluka along with his staff , surrounded the vehicle and checked the vehicle and arrested Accused 2 and Accused 3 and seized 1) 500 ML Budweiser Magnum Tin Beers – 86 (MRP Rs 140 x 86 = 12040/-). 2) 500 ML Budweiser King of tin Beers -44 (MRP Rs 122 X 44 = 5368/-) total Tin Beers 130 and total worth 17408/- from the possession of accused A2 & A3 and seized the Hundai santro Asta car bearing No

AP05EM1679. The accused 2 and 3 purchased said non duty paid illicit liquor bottles at Yanam. So the S.I of Police prepared Occurence Report in the presence of their staff and for in which the A2 and A3 said that the

A1 had asked them to go to Yanam and bring tin beers for a function at his house, and accordingly they had brought them.

05.The learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused submitted that:

1. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 humbly submitted to this Court that he is the resident of Balantram village of K. Gangavaram Mandal, Dr. BRA Konaseema

District and he is the alleged Accused in the above said crime.

2. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 further submitted this court that the Amalapuram

Taluka Police foisted the false case under Sec. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act against him.

3. Petitioner/Accused No.1 further submitted to this court as per the allegations of the prosecution in the statement given by the De-facto complainant that on 30-04- 2026 at 12:45 A.M. near house of Rajulapudi Rajesh, Kamanagaruvu Village,

Amalapuram Mandal and reported on the same day wherein credible information about transport of the Illicit Liquor, S.1. of Police, Amalapuram Taluka PS along with his staff went to the near house of Rajulapudi Rajesh I Kamangaruvu Village, a car arrived there, immediately, the SI of police along with staff surrounded the vehicle and checked the vehicle and arrested the Accused No.2 Rajulapudi 3

Ganesh, S/o. Narayana rao and A3 Rajulapudi Rajesh, S/o. Varaprasad and seized 1. 500 ML Budweiser Magnum Tin Beers-86 bottles 2. 500 ML Budweiser

King of tin beers- 44 bottles, total tin beers 130 bottles and total worth of Rs.

17,408/- from the possession of A2 and A3 and also seized the Hundai Santro

Asta Car bearing No. AP05EM1679. The accused persons purchased said non duty paid illicit liquor bottles at Yanam, the accused persons said that the

Panchayat Cleaner (A1) has asked them to go to Yanam and bring tin beers for a function at his house and accordingly they had brought them. This is the allegations of the prosecution.

4. Petitioner/Accused No.1 further submitted to the Hon'ble court, that all the allegations made by the De-facto complainant in his complaint are fully false and fabricated case. I further submit that I am an innocent person and I did not commit any offence as alleged by the complainant.

5. Petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the facts of the case that as per the confession statement of the A2 and A3, the S.I. of Police foisted the false case against him. Petitioner/Accused No.1 further submitted that he is having some disputes with A2 since long time and having bore grudge, the A2 and A3 gave a false statement against me.

6.The Petitioner/accused No.1 further submitted that he is a law abiding citizen and he is having good reputation in the society. I am a permanent resident of

Balantram village of K. Gangavaram Mandal, Dr. BRA Konaseema District and also working at Panchayat office at Kamanagaruvu Village and I am having wife and old parents and also residential houses. Hence there is no scope to escape from the clutches of this jurisdiction.

7. The petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that he did not file any similar Bail application before any other court and he is apprehended by the police to his arrest.

4

8. The petitioner/accused No.1 further submitted to this Court that he is ready and willing to produce sureties and oblige any conditions if any imposed.

9. Therefore the petitioner/accused No.1 humbly prays that the Hon'ble court enlarge him on Bail pending disposal of the case in the interest of justice.

06.The point for consideration is :

“Whether the Petitioner/ Accused 1 is entitled for Anticipatory

bail as prayed for?”

07. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the petitioner/accused .

08.The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 submitted that the petitioner/accused 1 did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the petitioner/accused 1 is prayed to allow this petition.

09.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. On perusal of CD and other material available in record, the brief facts on 30.04.2026 at 2.00 PM, basing on information about transport of illicit liquor, Amalapuram Taluka P.S. along with his staff proceeded to the near house of Rajalapudi Rajesh in Kamanaguruvu Village, and stopped a car which was arrived there. Immediately the S.I of Police along with his staff , surrounded the vehicle and checked the vehicle and arrested Accused 2 and

Accused 3 and seized Tin Beers 130 and total worth 17408/- from the possession of A2 and A3 and seized the Hundai santro Asta car bearing No

AP05EM1679. The A2 and A3 said that the A1 had asked them to go to

Yanam and bring tin beers for a function at his house, and accordingly they had brought them.

5 11. It is pertinent to note that as per the decision reported in between State of Rajasthan vs Balchand @ Baliya’s case ( V.R.Krishna Iyer.J ) had observed that, “Bail is a rule, Jail is an exception”. It was further held that , the basic rile may perhaps be tersely put as bail,

In another decision in between Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of

Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 where in the Honourable Apex Court has held that; “To ascertain the merits of the case it has to be understood that the case is in the pre-trail stage, and it is impossible to prove the actions of the party.

Therefore the legal presumption of innocent till proven guilty is the fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that has to be adhered to and the person apprehending arrest has every right to anticipatory bails he is not convicted of any offence yet and the court has to presume him to be innocent” 12. On careful scrutiny of the material available on the record , the case dairy is discloses that, investigation is pending for want of apprehension of accused only. More over the witnesses are official witnesses and they were already examined by the police. So, the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise. It appears that material part of investigation is completed.Further the police did not sought any particular custodian interrogation of A1. So it shows that there is no need to custodial interrogation of the accused No.1. In view of the circumstances and stage of the investigation and by applying the observations made in the referred judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, this court is inclined to use discretionary powers for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner / accused but by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly the point is answered.

6

13. IN THE RESULT, this petition is Allowed. The petitioner/ Accused No 1 shall surrender before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Amalapuram, concerned on or before 30.05.2026. On such surrender, the Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Amalapuram is directed to release the petitioner/ Accused

No.1 on his executing a self bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to his/her satisfaction.

1. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation of the police as and when required and petitioner/accused 1 directed to attend before the station house officer Amalapuram Taluka P.S., concerned on every Saturday in between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

3. Any violation of the above conditions, including failure to appear in court, may attract cancellation of bail upon a separate application presented by the prosecution.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15thday of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.G.Priyadarsini

XIV AdditionalSessions Judge, I/C II ASJ, Amalapuram.

1

INTHECOURTOFTHEIIADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE:

AMALAPURAM.

PRESENT:-SMT G. PRIYADARSINI,

XIV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AMALAPURAM

I/C II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

CRL.M.P. NO.33/2026 IN CR.NO.66/2026 OF

KATRENIKONA PO LICE STATION

Between:

1. Dasari Dhanaji, S/o.Venkateswara Rao (A1) Age 27 years, Hindu, Tammayicheruvu, H/o Pallamkurru village, Katrenikona Mandal.

2. Dasari Kavitha, W/o. Satyanarayana, (A2) Age 38 years, Tammayicheruvu, H/o Pallamkurru village, Katrenikona Mandal

... Petitioners/Accused no.1 and 2

And

The State represented by S.H.O. Katrenikona P.S.

...Respondent / Complainant

This petition is coming on 14.05.2026 before this court for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Tatam Raju, Sri G.Srinivasa Rao Advocates for

Petitioners/ Accused no.1 and 2 and of Sri A.V.S.Prasad, Additional Public

Prosecutor for State and upon perusing the record, this Court made the following :-

R O D E R

01.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused no.1 and 2 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

02.This is a bail application filed by the petitioners/Accused no.1 and 2 under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge them on bail in Cr.No.66/2026 of

Katrenikona Police Station for the offense punishable under Section

U/s.108, 85 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

2

03. The Addl. Public Prosecutor received the notice, opposed the bail of the petitioners/Accused no.1 and 2.

04.In brief, on 28.4.2026 the defacto-complainant gave report to the

Katrenikona P.S. that on 8.4.2025 he solemnized his elder daughter

Swarna Kumari marriage with Dasari Danaji, but for the past few days, his son-in-law started harassment against his daughter both mentally and physically and his son-in-law developed illicit relationship with his own sister-in-law. So, both A1 and A2 subjected to his elder daughter to cruelty mentally and physically and the same was informed by his daughter to his son. On which he along with his family members advised his son-in-law to snap to illicit affair and look after his wife with amicable terms but there is no change in the attitude of his son-in-law and both accelerated harassed against his elder daughter in so many ways and they also enticed her to die also and the same was informed to him by phone. On 28.4.2026 his brother/Kondepudi Durga Prasad received a phone call from one Gurrala

Srinivasu that his daughter/Swarna Kumari hanged herself and she was taken to Katrenikona Government Hospital and later he also received a phone call from Gurrala Srinivasu that his daughter/Swarna Kumari is no more. So he gave report to the Police that his daughter died due to physically and mentally harassment caused by her husband and his sister-in-law and other family members of her matrimonial family and A1 and A2 are enticed her to die due to which his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. The report was registered as in Cr.No.66/2026 under

Section 108, 85 r/w 3(5) of BNS by Katrenikona P.S.

05.The learned counsel for Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that: 1)

The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that they had been involved in a false case filed with the instigation of the relations of the deceased, by lodging a complaint/FIR No.66/2026 under Sections 108, 85 r/w 3(5) of BNS.

The applicants/accused has been arrested by the Police of Katrenikona P.S.

3 and produced before the judicial first class magistrate, Mummidivaram on 30.4.2026 and remanded by the Court and extend the remand from time to time and remanded upto 14.5.2026. 2) The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners are innocent person and they did not committed any offence much less the alleged offence. Due to some petty family disputes in between the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 and the deceased and due to village politics only, the police falsely implicated the

Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 in the case. The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 are nothing to do with the alleged offence. As per the allegations of the F.I.R in the remand report are false. 3)The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 are permanent residents of

Tammayicheruvu, H/o.Pallamkurru village of Katrenikona Mandal and they are having family and properties and permanent aboard and they will not escape from the jurisdiction of the Court. 4) The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that most of the investigation is already completed, and all the witness were examined, except filing the charge sheet. Hence, there is no possibility to hamper and tamper the witness by the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2. 5) The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that applicants are willing to furnish sureties and bail bonds to the satisfaction of this court in case they will ordered to released on bail. The applicants are also willing to join the investigation bind themselves by the terms and conditions laid down by the law or by this court. The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that the applicants are not at all required for the investigation and the investigation is over. However, if the applicants are required for investigation, the applicants/accused 1 and 2 undertakes to be present as and when required in accordance with the law. 6) The Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 submitted that the Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are having parents and other family members and they are depending the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2. If the petitioners/accused is kept in the judicial custody, the other family members will become bread less. 7) The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 4 submitted that there is no similar application was filed or pending in any other court. 8) The Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 submitted that the Honble Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 on bail.

06.The point for consideration is :

“Whether the Petitioner/ Accused is entitled for Anticipatory

bail as prayed for?”

07. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the petitioner/accused .

08. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 & 2 submitted that the petitioner/accused 1 & 2 did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the Counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 & 2 are prayed to allow this petition.

09.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. On perusal of CD and other material available in record, In brief, the alleged offence is cruelty against women and abetment for commit suicide on 28.04.2026 the de facto complainant gave a report that the deceased / Dasari Swarna Kumari died due to harassment of both physically and mentally by her Husband/A1 and A2 and other members of her matrimonial family and A1 and A2 are enticed the deceased to die, due to which the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. It shows that there is a prima facie case made out against petitioner/accused 1 and accused 2.

On perusing the Case Diary, The investigation is at threshold stage and some more witnesses are to be examined. So it seems that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, at this stage, if the bail is 5 granted to the petitioners / accused 1 and accused 2, there is every likelihood that the petitioners / accused 1 and accused 2 may escape from the jurisdiction of this court and may induce, coerce or threaten the witnesses and there may be possibility to tamper the evidence. When the investigation is at threshold stage and by perusing the contents of the report and case dairy and in view of the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioners/accused 1 & 2, this court feels that it is not a fit case to consider the bail application of the petitioners/accused 1 & 2.

Accordingly the point is answered.

12.IN THE RESULT, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.G.Priyadarsini

XIV AdditionalSessions Judge, I/C II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram.