Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kothamasu Manikranth, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
1
APHC010310362025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6392/2025
Between:
1. Kothamasu Manikranth, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Vysya
Vranasi Street Addanki Town, Baptala District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Pattabhipuram P.S., Guntur, Guntur
District., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravathi.
2. Muvvala Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Kanaka Rathnam, aged about 58 years,
R/o.3-29-150,
150, Flat No.404, Hari Towers, Ramanuja Kutam, 1st Line, Krishna
Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P.
(Respondent
Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated
08.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.6392 of 2025
2025).
…Respondents
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C., and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to direct release of the Petitioner on
Bail pending enquiry and trial arising out of Crime No.190 of 2025 on the file of
the Pattabhipuram P.S., Guntur, Guntur District., and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
2
High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent as
Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant in the main Criminal Petition and
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. S DILIP JAYA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:
1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
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
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
₹20,00,000 as dowry, ₹5,00,000 in cash, and gifted gold and silver ornaments
worth ₹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
3
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. 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.
4
9. In Masroor V. State of U.P.1, 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. 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 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI2, 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
1
(2009) 14 SCC 286
2
(2012) 1 SCC 40
5trial 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, and 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 personal 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, save
in the most extraordinary circumstances.
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. In State of Kerala vs. Raneef 3, 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 custody
(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 Two 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
innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the
3
MANU/SC/0001/2011
6
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 petitioner’s 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-à-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 trial’s
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 petitioner’s 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 of
7Special 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.
(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.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 10.07.2025
SAK
8
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6392 of 2024
Date: 10.07.2025
SAK
[ad_1]
Source link