The Court, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners and his family members, who were accused in a case involving marital harassment and forced abortion.
On March 20, 2025, in the Criminal Petition No. 1609/2025 filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, the Court, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Yagna Teja Reddy @ Vajja Yagna Teja Reddy and his family members, who were accused in a case involving marital harassment and forced abortion.
ALSO READ: AP High Court Civil Judge Recruitment 2025: Full Details, Eligibility, and How to Apply
The matter was heard by the Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao.
The petitioners had filed the application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking anticipatory bail after being accused in a case registered by Kolimigundla Police Station in Nandyal District.
The case, identified as Crime No. 05/2025, includes charges under Sections 85, 89, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The police complaint lodged by the defacto complainant (wife of accused No.1) alleges that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the petitioners. They reportedly demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 20,00,000 from her parents and forced her into an abortion by mixing abortion pills in her ORS drink. The incident allegedly took place on January 16, 2025, at 18:00 hours and was reported to the police the same day.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that the complaint was a result of a family dispute and was filed only after a divorce petition was filed by the first petitioner in F.C.O.P No. 283 of 2024.
They maintained that the allegations lacked evidence and were framed as a criminal offense despite being a family matter. The petitioners also expressed their willingness to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
The Court considered several legal principles before arriving at its decision to grant anticipatory bail. One of the critical points highlighted was the delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant alleged that the abortion pills were mixed with the ORS drink on May 28, 2022, but the report was only filed with the police on January 16, 2025, more than two and a half years later.
ALSO READ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Chandrababu Naidu in AP Skill Development Case
Furthermore, the Court observed that the complaint had been filed shortly after the divorce petition was initiated, which raised the possibility that the allegations might have been fabricated after the divorce proceedings had begun.
Legal Precedents Cited in the Judgment
The Court referred to a series of Supreme Court rulings to determine the validity of the anticipatory bail request:
- In Mahipal V. Rajesh, the Supreme Court stressed that courts must assess whether prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the crime when considering a bail application.
- In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a rule but only when the Court is convinced the accused would not misuse their liberty.
- The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar warned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes and cautioned against implicating relatives without clear evidence. The Court quoted, “The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.”
- Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam also expressed concern over the impact of false implications in matrimonial disputes, stating, “Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.o., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.”
After reviewing the case, including the delay in filing the complaint and the lack of clear evidence implicating the petitioners, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court, while granting the bail, imposed several conditions:
- Surrender Requirement: The petitioners were directed to surrender before the Kolimigundla Police Station within two weeks from the date of the order.
- Surety Conditions: They were required to execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the same amount, ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
- Cooperation with the Investigation: The petitioners must cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as required. They are also prohibited from intimidating witnesses or influencing the investigation in any way.
The Court emphasized that the observations made in this order were preliminary and should not influence the ultimate outcome of the case. It reiterated that the investigating agency remains free to conduct the investigation independently. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners but cautioned them not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.
View Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
