Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs The State Ofandhra Pradesh on 19 April, 2024
/
lIIlllllIIIIIIIIr
/ I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR
FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
:PRESENT.I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO 9zffllt=|fi -'`
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2430 OF 2024 ,,>7-
Betwee n :
Dudula vidyasagar, s/o.umapathi, aged abt 29 years, occ software
Engineer, R/o.D.No. 13-1-33, Revenue colony, MG Colony, Ananthapuram
Town, Ananthapur Dist.
PetI-tl-Oner/Accused -1
AND
The State ofAndhra Pradesh, SHO, Yellanur P.S., Represented by its public
prosecutor, Hl-gh Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravatl', Guntur District.
Respondent
petition under sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of,grounds fI'Ied in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A 1 on Regular Bail in respect to the crime No.45/2024 dt.08.03.2024 on the file of Yellanur police StatI'On, Ananthapur Dist. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI TINNAVALLI VENKATA IVIANOJ ,z COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER APHCO10168752024 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl [3369] EEffil (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2430/2024 Betwee n :
Dudula Vidyasagar, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. TINNAVALLI VENKATA MANOJ Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:
The Criminal Petition filed, under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail, by petitioner/Al in Crime No.45 of 2024 of Yellanur Police Station, Ananthapuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.
3. Case of the prosecution is that this is a case of harassing and attempt to kill a married woman for additional dowry on 14.02.2024 at 01.30 p.m. the accused harassed the defacto complainant both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. The accused will plan to kill the defacto complainant and he will try to get another marriage, then he will get more dowry, with intent to kill the defacto complainant, the accused took her to the temple and performed darshanam, while the defacto complainant was u±J offering flowers to the god, the accused set fire on her saree on her back side and ran away from there. Thereafter, the defacto complainant shifted to Government Hospital for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident in question occurred on 14.02.2024 and the same was reported before the POljCe On 08.03.2024 and there is a delay of 22 days. The reasons for the delay is shown to be that she was admitted in the hospital Learned counsel for the placed the copy of discharge summary of defacto complajnant before this Court, it shows that the defacto complainant was discharged from the hospital on 23.02.2024.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that LWsl to 8 were examined,
6. Considering the remand period of petitioner from lO.03.2024, this Court finds that most of the investigation might have been completed by this time and further detention of petitioner is not required to complete the investigation. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner herein has no previous crime record. Moreover, the petitioner herein I-s a software engineer and he has permanent abode and there is no possibility Of his fleeing away from the justice.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:
i. The petitioner/Al shall be released on bail on his executing a Personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two (o2) sureties for a like sum each to the E satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipathri.
ii. After release, the petitioner/Al shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every sunday between 10.00am to 01.00pm for a period of three months; and iii. that the petitioner is directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution wl-tnesses.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petitl-on is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
\\./I /-
Sd/- K. J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// #1L--
Fo, SECTION Or-F!CER To,
1. The Judicial Magistrate of Fl'rst class, Tadjpathr,-
2. The Superl'ntendent, sub Jail, TadI'PathrI-
3. The station House officer, yellanur police Station, Ananthapur Dist
4. One cc to sRl. TINNAVALLI VENKATA MANOJ Advocate [opuc] 5 Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Hlgh court ofA.P[OUT]
6. One spare copy i¥ze?e# HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:19/04/2024 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2430 of 2024 +t*\. T`.I 2 0 APR3CiS +.
`\
-:9 fF.£p I:I__£ ALLOWED