Pilla Sridhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pilla Sridhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted subject to conditions: release on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam; appearance before the Investigating Officer every Sunday and Wednesday between 10.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. for three months; no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; no leaving the territory of India without prior permission of the Court; surrender of passport before the investigating agency. Observations clarified as preliminary and confined to the bail application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to regular bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 77, 78(ii) BNS and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act. +1 more

Court's answer

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 such tampering/intimidation; continued preventive custody cannot rest on unsubstantiated suspicion.

Ratio / Principle

Given the penal provisions invoked vis-a-vis pre-trial custody, the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to the case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage subject to compliance with the terms and conditions in the order; the petitioner's release would not hamper the investigation.

Key takeaways

A significant portion of the investigation is likely completed considering the nature of allegations and the length of detention; the petitioner has a fixed place of residence making abscondance highly improbable; no prior criminal record is reported; no material shows granting bail would hinder justice; the Court finds no risk of tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation but imposes stringent conditions to ensure attendance during investigation and trial.ratio¶55
To establish an offence under section 108 of the BNS, the essential elements outlined in section 45 of the BNS must be satisfied.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS granted to software professional accused in Crime No.46/2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered initially under Section 194 BNSS and altered to Sections 108, 77, 78(ii) BNS and Section 67-A I.T. Act over alleged abetment of suicide of a married woman with whom the accused allegedly had an intimate relationship and secret recordings. Held: mere apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation is not a ground to refuse bail absent proof of attempted tampering; a significant portion of investigation is complete after custody since 10.03.2025; the petitioner has a fixed place of residence, roots in India and no prior criminal record; the remand report itself noted the deceased may have died due to health problems or other reasons; whether Section 108 BNS ingredients are satisfied is left to trial. Reliance placed on Asroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286, and Amab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427. Bail allowed with stringent conditions: personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, twice-weekly appearance before the IO for three months, no inducement to witnesses, no travel abroad without permission, and surrender of passport. Observations preliminary, not on merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR \ THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APR[_&4 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3229 OF 2025

Between :

Pilla Sridhar, S/o (Late) Ananda Rao, Aged 52 yrs, Krishna Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam, earlier at Texas, USA(House No.1009), paradise cv carlton, Texas (USA), (presently at Central Prision, Visakhapatnam)

... Petitl-oner/Accused AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.O,, of IIl town P.S., Visakhapatnam , Rep.,by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi

...Respondent/Complainant

EEEE

Petition under sections '480 & 483 of BNSS, prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated in the m`emorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Enlarge the Petitioner / Accused on Bail in connection with the crime No.46/2025 of Ill Town Poll'ce Station, VI'SakahPatnam City by Allowing the Criminal Petition in the interest of the J-uStl-Ce Or Otherwise he Will be put to suffer a serious loss and hardship.

The Petition coming on fo;-hearing,-upon perusing the petitI-On and the memorandum of grounds filed tin support thereof and upon hearing thet: arguments of SRI R SIVA SAI SWARUP Advocate for the petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the R;spondent;

[3369]

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3229/2025

Between :

Pilla Sridhar

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.R SIVA SAI SWARUP

counsel for the Respondent/cOmPlainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the follow-Ing ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, lBNSS'), is filed on behalf Of the petitioner/accused, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2025 of Ill Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

A case has been registered against the Petit'IOner/accused for the offences punishable under section 108, 77, 78('li) of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023 (for short, IBNS') and Sect'lon 67-A of I.T. Act.

The prosecutiOnlS Case 'lS that the defaCtO COmPlainant, WOrk'lng aS the Manager of Meghalaya Hotel, Visakhapatnam, Stated that the accused checked into the hotel on o6.03.2025 at around 01 I.15 P.M. At approximately

|`

-i=

-->

01:40 P.M,, the deceased, Mrs. K. Roja, entered the room. Around 03:35 PM, the accused requested the coinplainant to open the room door, claiming it had been locked by mistake. As the complainant entered, the accused was crying and stated that the deceased had become unconscious and was unresponsive in the bathroom. On opening the door, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Based on the report of the defacto complainant, Ill Town Police, Visakhapatnam, registered a case in Cr.No.46/2025 under section 194 of BNSS. During the course of investigation, it emerged that the accused was a habitual womanizer. Upon arrest, he confessed to having persistently pursued the deceased, developed an acquaintance with her, and continuously stalked her under the pretext of love and had sexual intercourse with her for several times. The investigation further revealed that the accused had secretly recorded intimate moments between himself and the deceased without her consent; he threatened to disclose the recordings to her husband; on the date of the incident, the accused was called to the hotel room, and while attempting to record such moments again, the deceased noticed the act and confronted him about his behavior and the unauthorized recordings; then, the accused threatened the deceased to show the video recordings that were videographed previously and abetted her to commit sul'cide, due to threatening, the deceased went into the washroom and committed suicide by hanging with chunny to the shower rod. Later, the case was altered to Sections 108, 77, 78(ii) of BNS Act & Section 67-A of lT Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the remand and complaint are based solely on a self-styled confession by the accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. Both the petitioner and the deceased Roja were married and involved in an extramarital relationship. As per the prosecution, the deceased ended her life after the petitioner allegedly threatened to disclose the affair to her husband. Even assuming the prosecution's case to be true, no ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 108 BNS are made out. A person taking such an extreme step due to

a,222? `` c-_

fear or emotional distress does not, by itself, constitute abetment. ln siml'lar circumstances, this Hon'b'e court has granted bail I'n CrI.P.No.9282/2023 and crl.p.No.4759/2024. It is submitted that the petjtI-Oner is having movable and immovable propertl'es in India and has his roots in lnd,'a and as such, his abscondance to USA wi" not arise,I the petitioner, a software professl-onal wl-th faml'ly responsibill-tl'es, undertakes to abide by aH conditions imposed by thI-S Hon'ble Court and to fully cooperate with the I-nVeStl-gall-on.

on the other hand, sri G. NeelothpaI, learned Assistant PubII-C prosecutor for the Respondent-state, strongly opposed the grant of regular bail, cI-ting the incomplete l®nvestI'gatI-On.

I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reI-terated theI-r subm,'ssions, which are on par with the contentions presented I-n the petition and the report.

"asroor v. sfafe ofu.p.J, a Divis,-on Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

1`:,...;:.I_ho:_g_I .at. tPe .stage of granting bail, an elaborate examination of envrfdi:I::^eb?hn^d ^d^e^t:!=] I_e,?SO.n.S. touch i.ig fh; ;5rii--dr ii=:vc;:: ";i::;v':av; p^r.:!uLd!C:, _tPe accuseg, should be avoiofed, but irh;r:-i:-'; ;::;i;'i';I:i';;;;;n snuacrihi::,d.::,r::LS^O.nhs.!O_r P:ira i?c.ie c.oncldding ;i; -;ril ';=s-;vei;;'*;i:i p^attrf:c_u^I_arly where the accused is charged off ;;;i;;-:;I:;i;tv:J¥ag:ue';';uus offence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the ingredients of sect,Ion 108 of the BNS do not apply to the facts of thl-s case. Furthermore, with the exception of section 108 of the BNS, the other offences alleged carry a punishment of imprl'sonment of less than seven years.

To establish an offence under sectl'on 108 of the BNS, the essential elements outlined in sectI'On 45 of the BNS must be satl'sfied.

€€

1 (2009) 14 SCC 286

'\ ii=

The material on record indicates that both the petitioner and the deceased were married individuals, each with a spouse and children; the petitioner and the deceased developed an illegal intimate relationship, Which involved physical contact; in furtherance of this relationship, the petitioner travelled from USA to India, specifically to Visakhapatnam, where he booked a room at the Meghalaya hotel; during this time, the deceased visited him; at one point, the deceased begged the petitioner to end their relationship, aS he had threatened to leak intimate videos to her husband and in that process, the deceased committed suicide by handing to the bathroom shower.

ll. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that I'n the remand report, the investl'gation officer made a note that the deceased committed suicide due to her health problems or might have behind some other reasons in the death of the deceased. lt is also referred that about twenty days back, the deceased came down to lndl-a for getting treatment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amab Manoran/-an Goswam,-V. Sfafe of Maharashfra2, held that;

"ln cases of alleged abetment of su®IC-Ide, there must be Proof Of direct Or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide''.

At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the triaI'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. lt 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.

2 (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 427

~~L `~

The petjtloner's contl®nued preventIVe Custody cannot be based on an

unsubstantjated suspICiOn that he ml'ght tamper wI'th the evidence or l'nfluence wltnesses. Gl'ven the penal provlslons Invoked vlz-a-vl'z pre-trI'al custody, coupled wI'th the prjma facI'e analysis of the nature of aIIegatl'ons, and the other factors pecullar to thI'S Case, there would be no justl-fiabl'lity further pretr,-al jncarceratl'on at thI'S Stage, subject to the compII-anCe Of terms and condl'tI-OnS mentl-oned jn thI'S Order. Given the same, the petitjoner's release would not hamper the I-nvestI'gatl'on.

The materl-al on record I-ndl'cates that the crl'me was reg,-stered on o6.03.2025, and the petjtjoner has been ln judICI'a' custody sl'nce 10.03.2025. By thI-S I,'me, a sjgnjficant portion of the lnvestI'gatIOn js likely to have been completed consI'derlng the nature of allegations and the length of the detentI'On, thl's Court vl'ews that the detention of the petl'tl'oner ls requl'red for further investigation. Furthermore, the petltloner has a fixed place of resl'dence, making I-I hl'ghly improbable that he would abscond l'f granted ba" No prl'or crl-mI'nal record has been reported agal-nst the petitI-Oner. The trlal's commencement l's uncertain as the investigation js I'nCOmPlete, and there js no material that granting ba" would hinder justICe. Therefore, thI-S Court finds no risk of the petjtl'oner tampering wl'th wl-tnesses or hamperI'ng the jnvestl'gatl-on. However, jn lI'ght of the nature of allegations, thl-s court wI'll ,Impose stringent condjt''ons to ensure the petI'tl-Oner's attendance during the I-nVeStl-gatl'on and trial.

For the reasons stated above, thl-s court views that bal-I can be granted to the petl'tJ'Oner/accused wl-th the followl-ng condl-tI-OnS.I

(l') petjt,'oner/accused sha" be released on ba" on executI-ng a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Fl|ve Thousand only) wI'th two suretI-eS for the like sum each to the satl'sfactl-on of lv AddI'tl'OnaI Chl-ef Metropolitan Magistrate, VI'Sakhapatnam.

/

/ € •Ei

I q / I

(ii) on such release, pdjtioner / accused sha" appear before the 'lnvestigat'lng officer concerned twice in a week i.e., every sunday and wednesday between 10.00 am and 01.00 pm, for a per®lod of three (03) months.

(iii)The Petitioner/Accused Shall not, d-lreCtly Or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted w-Ith 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 'lnvest'lgating agency.

(iv)The petitioner Shall not leave the territory Of India Without the pr®lor permission of the Court.

(v)The petitioner Sha" Surrender Passport before the invest'lgating agency.

lt iS eXPliC-ltly clar'lfied 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 mer'lts. The Investigating Agency iS free to investigate w'lthout being influenced by the observations in this order.

Accordingly, the Cr-Iminal Petit'lon iS a//OWed.

Miscellaneous aPPliCat'[OnS Pending, if any, Shall stand Closed.

ASSISTANT-riIC±Ja-I I._SQP±TB.-`FBA±S'A a RAG

SECTION

\ //TRUE COPY// F|_ lr-ts --

A

Jr,

To,

The lv AddI'tjOnal Chl'ef Metropolitan MagI'Strate, Vlsakhapatnam, VI'Sakhapatnam DI-Strl'ct

The Superl|ntendent, central Prl-son, vlsakhapatnam, vISakhapatnam Distrl-ct

The Statl'on House officer, "I Town police StatI'On, VIsakhapatnam, Vl'sakhapatnam DI'Strjct

One CC to SRI. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Advocate [opuc]

Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court of Andhra pradesh

[OUT]

One spare copy

PSR

I/

HIGH COURT

TIVI R,J

DATED..17/04/2025

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.3229 of 2025

ALLOWED