ORDER : T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, BNSS), is filed on behalf of the petitioner/A.1, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.190 of 2025 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) r/w 3(5) of`Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the Sub-Inspector of Pattabhipuram Police Station registered Crime No.190/2025 against the a petitioner and three others, based on a complaint filed by the deceased's father. He alleged that his daughter, Ch. Kanaka Venkata Naga Sai Meghana (aged 24), was married to A.1 on 12.02.2023. At the time of marriage, he paid Rs.20,00,000 as dowry, Rs.5,00,000 in cash, and gifted gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.20,00,000 in response to demands from A.1 and his family. Subsequently, the accused allegedly demanded residential plots in Guntur. Although the complainant assured that such property would be transferred to the children of A.1 in the future, A.1 continued to harass the deceased, pressuring her to register the plots in his name. This harassment was reportedly supported by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. After the birth of a female child, the harassment intensified. Further dowry was allegedly demanded in the form of plots .at Gorantla, Guntur, and the deceased's gold ornaments,were pledged at a bank. These actions reportedly caused her severe mental and emotional distress,'ultimately leading her to end her life' by jumping from her apartment and commit suicide on 02.05.2025 at 05.00 A.M. 4. Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, and the case lacks the essential elements of an offence under Section 80(2) of the BNS, as no specific role has been attributed to him. The crime was registered on 02.05.2025, and the investigation is nearly complete, with material witnesses (LW-1 to. LW-8) examined; only RFSL reports and the final charge sheet remain pending. There is no risk of evidence tampering or interference. Incriminating materials have been seized, and key witnesses examined. The Petitioner's earlier bail application (Crl.M.P.No.870 of 2025) before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, was dismissed mechanically on 10.06.2025 without proper consideration. The Petitioner is a respected, permanent resident of the village and has been in custody since 05.05.2025. There is no risk of evidence tampering or interference. Incriminating materials have been seized, and key witnesses examined. The Petitioner's earlier bail application (Crl.M.P.No.870 of 2025) before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, was dismissed mechanically on 10.06.2025 without proper consideration. The Petitioner is a respected, permanent resident of the village and has been in custody since 05.05.2025. He is willing to furnish adequate sureties and comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court. 5. On the other hand, Sri G. Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the 1st Respondent-State, strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the incomplete investigation. 6. On behalf of the Defacto complainant, Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 7. Pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the De facto Complainant has been impleaded as the 2nd Respondent in the present Criminal Petition. 8. I have heard both sides, Learned counsel on either side reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. 9. In Masroor V. State of U.P, (2009) 14 SCC 286 , a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may Prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted Particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 10. As seen from the material on record, Petitioner/A.1 was remanded to judicial custody on 05.05.2025 and since then he has been in judicial custody. 11. According to the prosecution's case, on 01.05.2025, the elders took the deceased to the petitioner/A.1's house; however, the petitioner/A.1 was unwilling to reconcile or rejoin with the deceased. The prosecution further asserts that the victim committed suicide on 02.05.2025 at approximately 5:00 AM, at the residence of the de facto complainant, but not at the petitioner's residence. The record shows that the petitioner had dropped the deceased at her parents house before the ugadi festival, and as a result, the deceased had been residing separately for over a month. The record shows that the petitioner had dropped the deceased at her parents house before the ugadi festival, and as a result, the deceased had been residing separately for over a month. Although allegations have been made that the petitioner physically and mentally harassed the deceased with demands for additional dowry since the time of marriage, no substantive material has been presented to indicate that any complaint was lodged before the registration of the present case, It is not the Prosecution's case that the further detention of the Petitioner is required to conduct further investigation. 12. The two paramount considerations, namely, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence, relate to ensuring a fair case trial in the course of justice. Due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. 13. In Sanjayanandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, dnd that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of the trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of perednal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, sdve in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content. It would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct, whether the accused has been convicted for it or not, or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 14. ln State of Kerala vs. Raneef, MANU/SC/0001/2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 13. In the present case the Respondent has already spent 66 days in ctistody (as stated in paragraph 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in .Charles Dicken's novel 'A Tale of Tiro Cities', who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. 15. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or a innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 16. The petitionerls continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 16. The petitionerls continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Given the penal provisions invoked vis-a-vis pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance with terms and' conditions mentioned in this order. Given the same, the petitioner's release would not cause in any Way hampering of investigation. 17. The record indicates that the petitioner has a permanent residence, with no reasonable concern of absconding and no prior criminal record. The trials commencement remains uncertain as the investigation is still ongoing. There is no material to suggest that granting bail would obstruct justice. This Court finds no risk of the petitioner tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.05.2025, by which time a significant portion of the investigation is likely complete, and LWs.1 to 8 have been examined. The investigation into the petitionerls role is substantially concluded. Given these circumstances, this Court concludes that releasing the petitioner on bail will not impede the investigation. However, due to the seriousness of the allegations, stringent conditions will be imposed to ensure the petitioner's attendance throughout the investigation and trial. 18. For the reasons stated above, this Court views that bail can be granted to the petitioner/A.1 with the following conditions: (i) petitioner/A.1 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction ofSpecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur, Guntur District. (ii) On such release, petitioner/A.1 shall appear before the investigating officer concerned twice in a week i.e., every Sunday and Wednesday between 10.00 am and 01.00 pm, for a period of three (03) months. (ii) On such release, petitioner/A.1 shall appear before the investigating officer concerned twice in a week i.e., every Sunday and Wednesday between 10.00 am and 01.00 pm, for a period of three (03) months. (iii) The petitioner/A.1 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating agency. 19. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is free to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.