Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 612 (AP)

Duvvuri Surya Rahul v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-18

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2025
ORDER : K Sreenivasa Reddy, J. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.369 of 2024 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 85 , 115 (2), 308 (5), 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘ BNS ’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.11.2024 at 5.00 p.m. the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant by name Cherukupalli Krupa Kamakshi presented a report to Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi stating that her marriage with petitioner herein/ accused No.1 was performed on 09.12.2021 and at the time of her marriage, her parents were alleged to have given a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs, Rs.5.00 lakhs worth of gold and 300 sovereigns of gold towards dowry; that as the in-laws of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant were alleged to have demanded to perform five-days marriage, the father of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was alleged to have spent a sum of Rs.2.00 crores for performing marriage. (b) It is the allegation that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and her parents i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 were alleged to have harassed the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant physically and mentally, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents; that on 08.10.2024 the family members and elders took the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to the house of petitioner herein/accused No.1 at Bangalore and on that day, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have subjected her to many kinds of harassment, torture and also beat her and forced her to sign on some blank bond papers; that when the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant refused to do so, all the accused were alleged to have attacked her and made her panic; that again on 10.10.2024 all the accused were alleged to have forced the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to sign on blank bond papers with their names on them and threatened her to kill with knife, caught hold her tuft and forcibly obtained the signatures of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant on four blank bond papers and also forced her to obtain signatures of her father and mother. On the strength of the report, police registered a case in Crime No.369 of 2024 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupathi for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. 4. Sri Umesh Chandra P.V.G. learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused No.1 submits that except the offence punishable under Section 3 08 (5) of BNS , all the offences alleged as against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 are punishable up to seven (07) years. According to him, in order to circumvent Section 3 5 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘ BNS S ’), the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant hand in gloves with the police, registered the case for the aforesaid offences along with the offence punishable under Section 3 08 (5) of BNS . Learned counsel would further submit that there is a dispute arose when petitioner herein/accused No.1 was asked to be illatam son-in-law, as the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant wanted the petitioner herein/accused No.1 to be in her house. Learned counsel would further submit that there is a dispute arose when petitioner herein/accused No.1 was asked to be illatam son-in-law, as the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant wanted the petitioner herein/accused No.1 to be in her house. He further submitted that in pursuant to the accusation that has been made, at one point of time, the father of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant bought a flat to the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant and according to him, if, really there is harassment meted out to the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant, question of buying a flat by the father of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his daughter, would not arise. He further submits that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is ready to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available as and when called for by the Investigating Officer. 5. On the other hand, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant would contend that as per the information given by the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his parents, it is stated that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 was working for an organization and they also shared his Bio-Data to the respondent No.2 herein/ de facto complainant with false contents. After marriage, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is an unemployed person and he is not working in any organization. The respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant further came to know that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is a free lancer, doing boot strapping business. 5.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in pursuant to the marriage, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his parents harassed the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant for additional dowry, jewellery and other gift articles. When the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant refused to inform her father about the demands made by the accused, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his parents went on harassing the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant, subjected her to cruelty and manhandled her repeatedly. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was harassed and she was forcibly made to sign on certain blank bond papers on 10.10.2024 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was necked out from the conjugal home. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was harassed and she was forcibly made to sign on certain blank bond papers on 10.10.2024 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was necked out from the conjugal home. In view of the gravity and specific accusations, the learned senior counsel prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. A perusal of material on record goes to show that admittedly, the marriage between the respondent No.2 herein/ de facto complainant and the petitioner herein/accused No.1 was performed on 09.12.2021 as per the Hindu rites and caste customs and at the time of marriage, cash and jewellery were alleged to have presented to the accused. A perusal of material on record further goes to show that at the time of marriage, the petitioner herein/ accused No.1 and his parents were alleged to have shared the Bio-data of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 showing that he is working for an organization, but subsequent to marriage, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant learnt that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is an unemployed person not working in any organization and she further learnt that the petitioner herein/accused No.1 was a free lancer, doing boot strapping business. 7. A perusal of the report submitted by the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant goes to show that the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was meted out harassment in the hands of the accused, wherein all the accused were alleged to have demanded her to bring additional dowry and other gift articles from her parents, and when she refused to inform all the demands to her father, it is alleged that the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was subjected to harassment and cruelty. It is further alleged in the report that the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant, who is accused No.2 in the subject crime, informed the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant that they sustained loss in the business and demanded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. In connection with that, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was confined in a room and was harassed for the aforesaid amount. The respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was beaten to get the said amount from her parents. Thereafter, mediation took place, wherein, in the midst of elders, accused undertook that they would take care of the respondent No.2 herein/ de facto complainant, well. The respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was beaten to get the said amount from her parents. Thereafter, mediation took place, wherein, in the midst of elders, accused undertook that they would take care of the respondent No.2 herein/ de facto complainant, well. But thereafter, once again, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was harassed by the accused Though, mediation took place for several times, the attitude of the accused towards the petitioner herein/accused No.1 has not changed. 8. It is further alleged that on 08.10.2024, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant went to the house of the petitioner herein/accused No.1. It is alleged that on 10.10.2024, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was threatened and on the point of knife, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 made her to sign on certain bond papers. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was necked out from the house. It appears that certain messages were exchanged between the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant and her father and a copy of the same has been filed along with the counter affidavit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused No.1 submits that on 24.09.2022, the respondent No.2 herein/ de facto complainant sent a mail to her father stating that if something happens to her, her husband’s mother would be responsible therefor, as she was torturing the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant, mentally and emotionally and at any point of time if, something happens to her, it is only because of the petitioner’s mother. At one point of time, the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant had shown the finger at the mother of the petitioner herein/accused No.1, but at a later point of time, on 08.10.2024, she made allegations that all the accused were alleged to have threatened in order to sign on certain blank bond papers and thereafter, she was necked out from the conjugal home. 10. Learned senior counsel submits that the said bond papers have been seized by the police and it is apprehended that by making use of the said signed bond papers, it is not known whether any of the properties have been transferred in the name of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his parents. 11. Section 308 of BNS deals with ‘Extortion’. Learned senior counsel submits that the said bond papers have been seized by the police and it is apprehended that by making use of the said signed bond papers, it is not known whether any of the properties have been transferred in the name of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and his parents. 11. Section 308 of BNS deals with ‘Extortion’. Section 308 (5) of BNS prescribes that whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to show that whoever commits extortion in fear of death or of grievous hurt, then the offence punishable under Section 308 (5) of BNS is applicable. 12. A perusal of police report goes to show that an allegation has been made only to the extent of making the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant to sign on certain blank bond papers. Prima facie there is no allegation that respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant was put in fear of death or grievous hurt, any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. In the absence of said accusation, there is any amount of ambiguity as to whether the offence punishable under Section 308 (5) of BNS would attract insofar as the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is concerned. However, in respect of other offences, prima facie there are certain allegations that have been made, whereunder the petitioner herein/accused No.1 harassed and tortured the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant, which prima facie goes to show that she expressed to her father that she intended to commit suicide. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein/accused No.1. 13. However, since the parents of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 were already enlarged on regular bail and, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is directed to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and shall make an application seeking for his release on regular bail. 13. However, since the parents of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 i.e. accused Nos.2 and 3 were already enlarged on regular bail and, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is directed to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and shall make an application seeking for his release on regular bail. Upon filing such application, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 on the same day and dispose of the same on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this Order. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.2153 of 2025 is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.