Mangalampalli Suresh v. The State Of Telangana
[ 31s8 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8094 OF 2019 Between:
1. Y. SHYAMALA, W/o. Lingam, (A2)
2. Yasaraveni Praveen, S/o. Lingam, (A3) Petitioners/Accused No.2 &3 AND The State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, P.S, Veernapally, Rajanna Sircilla District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Respondent/ Defacto Com plaina nt Petitlon under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the S.H.O. P.S.Veernapally Rajanna Sirlcilla Karimnagar Dist or any other arresting officer to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused NO. 2 and 3 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the Cr.NO.t912079 of the police P.S.Veeranapally Rajanna Siricilla District on such terms and conditlons;
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds flled in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI S SURENDER REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following.
ORDER:
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8O94 OF 2019 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.19 of 2Ol9 of P.S. Veernapally, Rajanna Siricilla District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 3O7, 5O4 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.
In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that basing on the private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla, which was referred to the police and the present crime was registered. According to the private complaint, complainant was married to A-1 on 17.08.2018 and after 15 days of their marriage, A-1 started suspecting her character and harassing her and not allowed to go outside and not allowed to talk with anybody. He used to beat her all over the body during nights and used to participate in sex with her forcibly. A-1 used to harass the complainant at the instigation of the petitioners/A-2 ard A-3 and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and when expressed inability to bring the said amount, A-1 beat the complainant and thrown her from the house and threatened her with dire consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 would submit that the entire allegations in the private complaint are only ,/
c against A-1 and there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and the complainant filed the private complaint against all the family members with an intention to harass them. Except a bald statement of instigation, no specific allegations are attributed against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3. The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is the brother of A- 1 and they have nothing to do with the family affairs of A-1 and the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioners are having well reputation in the society and therefore, the question of absconding does not arise. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they would undertake that they would not tamper the evidence. It is further submitted that the entire investigation is completed except filing of charge sheet.
The petitioners are the permanent residents of Bandalingampally Village, Rajanna Sircilla District and are having movable and immovable properties and they are ready to furnish sufficient sureties in the event of their enlarging on bail. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionerslA-2 and A-3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-2 and A-3.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 on some conditions.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners/ A-2 and A-3 h,re directed to surrender before the
Station House Officer, Veernapally, Rajanna Sirciila District, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 on bail, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Ilfteen thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to his satisfaction. On such release, the petitionerslA-2 and A-3 shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and co-operate with the investigating ofhcer in investigating the case. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
I I <NI. CH, VENKATESWARLU i-ssGr,*Hr REGTSTRAR t ITRUE COPY I I SECTION OFFICER to'r,. tn" Station House officer' P'S'Veernpally' Raianna Sircilla' Karimnagar District.
z. in"'jrJi.iul Magistrate of First Class at Sircilla '
3. One CC to SRI. S SUnf frrOf n REDDY Advocate iOPUCI
4. Two ccs to puBlrc paodEcuion, Hign court ai Hvderabad loUTl
5. One SPar CoPY GR
/i HIGH COURT / GSDJ DATED: L9 / L2/ zOLg - iii s s s ,t f I
ORDER
CRLP.No.8O94 of 2O19 BAIL