Jatin Rathore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 December, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jatin Rathore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 December, 2021

Bench: D. Ramesh

mantener tenet e ee IEA EO LRT tC OI cate
<

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ° ae

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE *» ms
; PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

CRL.P.No. 7337 of 2021
Between:-

Jatin Rathore, S/o. Rajesh Rathore, Aged 24 years, R/o. H.No. 6, Sardar Bazar,
Porsa, Morena, Madhya Pradesh, Presently working as Sailor in Indian Navy,
FMU (V), Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
seeee Petitioner/Accused NO.1
AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh ,at Amaravati.

veces Respondent.

Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to to enlarge the
Petitioner/Accused No.1 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No. 438 of 2021 on the file of Il Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City,

Visakhapatnam District.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri Devavarapu Rambabu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Asst. Public
Prosecutor on behalf of respondent/State, the Court made the following

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7337 of 2021 ORDER:-

This petition is filed under Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking pre arrest bail to the petitioner/Al in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.438 of 2021 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.67 and 67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.

2. The case of prosecution is that the de facto complainant gave a report to police alleging that the petitioner is the senior of the de facto complainant in school and now working in Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam. On 11.12.2020, the de facto complainant met the petitioner in Rajasthan Royal Hotel, Visakhapatnam and at that time, the petitioner made false promise to her that the petitioner would marry her and both of them continued physical contract so many times. While they are talking through video calls, the petitioner captured screen shots and spread those photos in her facebook and instagram account, moreover shared her nude photos to his friend and on 26.07.2021, the petitioner shared the de facto complainant photos to every one through social media and then onwards she is receiving bad calls from so many unknown persons NS \ Oo particularly one person namely Shivam contacting her over phone No.7974491102 and caused agony on her with his dirty things. Basing on the report given by the de facto complainant, police registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 438 of 2021 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) (n), 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.67 and 67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 and the petitioner arrayed as accused No.1.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that even according to the complaint, she met the de facto complainant on 11.12.2020 but the complaint is made on 11.10.2020. On perusal of the entire complaint, they were not met on 11.12.2020. Even according to the complaint, the petitioner has threatening the de facto complainant on 26.07.2021 despite the complaint on 11.10.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the said crime and the petitioner is working in Indian Navy. The de facto complainant is falsely implicated the petitioner in this case.

N. N \ N.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that this is not a fit case to grant pre arrest bail.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the record as well as the complaint, this Court is inclined to grant pre arrest bail.

8. In view of the same, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/ Al shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 438 of 2021 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District on condition of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/-T. Madhavi .

// TRUE COPY// ASSIS STANT RE for SECTIC To

1.The VI Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam.

2.The Station House Officer, Il Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Visakhapatnam District.

3.Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati(OQUT)

4.One CC to Sri Devavarapu Rambabu, Advocate(OPUC)

5.One spare copy.

TKK -

OFFICER HIGH COURT DR.J DT.24-12-2021.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRL.P.No. 7337 of 2021 ALLOWED wn | ee "AS. at SN LER oe ge A Te Bee ge alt

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati