Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yeddula Vinod vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December, 2019
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Petition No.7770 of 2019
Order:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge
the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.143/2019 of
Punganur Urban Police Station of Chittoor District.
3. The alleged offences against him are under Sections
498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto
complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. He has
been harassing her with a demand for additional dowry. He has
also attempted to kill her by throttling her neck and thereby
committed the aforesaid offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
de facto complainant and accused No.1 lived in Zambia in
South Africa in pursuance of the employment of the petitioner.
The de facto complainant is not interested in living in Zambia and
she has been insisting him to set up a family at Chittoor or
Madanapalle. So, in that connection, there are differences
between both of them. Unable to bear the harassment of the
de facto complainant, the petitioner also lodged a report with the
Police on 17-8-2019 at 02.30 p.m. against the de facto
complainant. Thereafter, as a counter blast to the said report that
the de facto complainant has lodged this report and implicated the
2
CMR, J.
crlp_7770_2019 petitioner and other accused in a false case. Therefore, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that there is a clear allegation made in the FIR that the petitioner herein has attempted to kill the de facto complainant by squeezing her neck and there is also clear allegation that he has been harassing her with a demand for additional dowry. Therefore, he would submit that in view of the said seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner and as investigation in this case is at the threshold that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Perused the record.
8. As can be seen from the report lodged by the de facto complainant with the Police, it is clearly stated that the petitioner herein has been harassing the de facto complainant with a demand for additional dowry. It is also stated that the petitioner along with his parents visited her house and beat her and attempted to kill her by squeezing her neck. Therefore, the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie well founded. Although it is stated that accused No.1 has lodged a report with the Police against the de facto complainant on 17-8-2019 and as a counter blast to the said report that this report was lodged by the de facto complainant, the truth or otherwise of the said fact is to be ascertained during the course of investigation and if charge-sheet is filed during the course of trial. 3
CMR, J.
crlp_7770_2019 At this stage, it cannot be held that this report is a false report filed as a counter blast to the report lodged by accused No.1. Even as can be seen from the report lodged by accused No.1, the only allegation is that his wife at the instance of her parents has been insisting him to put up a separate family. So, no cognizable offence is made out even from the said report. Except placing the receipt issued by the Police to that effect, it is not shown that any case was registered on the basis of the said report. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as it is a case relating to harassment of a married woman in connection with a demand for dowry punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also as it is a case of making an attempt to kill his wife punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
30th December, 2019.
Ak 4 CMR, J.
crlp_7770_2019 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Criminal Petition No.7770 of 2019 30th December, 2019.
5CMR, J.
crlp_7770_2019 (Ak)