BNS, S. 89 (corresponding to S. 498-A IPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Petitioners (A.2 to A.4) are husband's family members — Defacto complainant alleged continuous harassment, including physical manhandling resulting in miscarriage, despite previous counselling and assurance — Petitioners contended allegations were omnibus, parties were living separately for eight months, and complainant filed a separate D.V.C.

BNS, S. 89 (corresponding to S. 498-A IPC) — Anticipatory Bail — Petitioners (A.2 to A.4) are husband's family members — Defacto complainant alleged continuous harassment, including physical manhandling resulting in miscarriage, despite previous counselling and assurance — Petitioners contended allegations were omnibus, parties were living separately for eight months, and complainant filed a separate D.V.C.

Held (Per K. Sujana, J.): The allegations against Petitioners (A.2 to A.4) are omnibus in nature and lack specificity. Considering the record shows the parties have been living separately for the last eight months, the harassment by these petitioners is unlikely. Further taking into account the health issues of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the financial dependency on Petitioner No. 3 (daily wage earner), custodial interrogation is not necessary. Anticipatory bail is granted subject to surrender before the Station House Officer within two weeks and other conditions. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Criminal Procedure — Anticipatory Bail — Conditions — Petitioners A.2 to A.4 directed to surrender before the SHO, Jagadgirigutta PS, within two weeks and be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000/- each with two sureties; further directed to appear before the SHO at 11:00 a.m. on every Wednesday for a period of eight weeks for investigation. (Paras 6, 7)

Analysis of Facts and Findings

The Court performed a prima facie analysis of the facts as presented by the defacto complainant and the petitioners.

Factual Element	Complainant's Submission (Prosecution Case)	Court's Finding (Application of Judicial Precedent)	Conclusion on Arrest
Nature of Allegations	Continuous physical/mental harassment; husband beat her stomach; father-in-law slapped; resulted in a miscarriage.	Allegations against A.2 to A.4 (in-laws) are omnibus in nature with no specific allegations against them. (Para 6). Judicial precedent (Supreme Court) strongly disfavours continuing proceedings against in-laws based on general, vague, and omnibus allegations.	Weak prima facie case for their immediate arrest.
Separation Status	Returned to matrimonial home on 01.05.2025 after a written assurance; stayed for about a month; miscarriage on 05.08.2025.	Petitioners' contention that they have been living separately from the complainant for the last eight months was noted (Para 4, 6). The "harassing the complainant... does not arise" (Para 4) suggests the Court accepted the separation greatly reduced the opportunity for continuous harassment by the in-laws.	Cooperation with the ongoing investigation is likely without custodial restraint.
Procedural History	Filed an initial petition (24.11.2024); registered Crime No. 8 of 2025 (11.01.2025) under old IPC/DP Act sections; subsequent complaint led to the current Crime No. 824 of 2025.	Complainant has already filed another criminal case and a D.V.C. (DVC No. 175 of 2025) (Para 4, 6). This multiplicity of litigation, while permissible, supports the argument that the in-laws' harassment may not be as persistent or direct as alleged.	Other legal avenues are already being pursued, mitigating the need for custodial intervention in this particular crime.
Personal Circumstances	None stated for A.2-A.4.	Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (father/mother-in-law) are suffering with health issues; Petitioner No. 3 (brother-in-law) is a daily wage earner and the sole family supporter (Para 4, 6).	Personal hardship and potential irreparable harm due to arrest were mitigating factors for granting bail.

Application of Law (Section 482 BNSS)

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, which is the current statutory provision governing Anticipatory Bail (formerly Section 438 Cr.P.C.).

• Objective: The law on anticipatory bail recognizes the constitutional right to personal liberty (Article 21) and seeks to prevent the weaponization of arrest in cases that may be motivated by matrimonial disputes or personal rivalry, especially when the allegations are vague.

• Court's Discretion: The BNSS, like its predecessor, grants the High Court wide discretion to grant pre-arrest bail, considering the facts of the case, the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the likelihood of the accused cooperating with the investigation. The Court, in this case, exercised this discretion based on the lack of specific, strong evidence against the in-laws.