Yakari Jagjeevan Ram, v. State Of Telangana,

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8508 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-1 and A-2, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.510 of 2019 of P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record. In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that the complainant gave report stating that on 07.10.2019 between 10.30 to 10.45 am while he was on work, the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 attacked himself, his wife and one Shyamala and beat him with sticks and bricks and tore the clothes of Shyamala and pushed her into a hole which was dug out there and abused them and that they behaved with his wife also in the same manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 would submit that no such incident has happened and the complainant gave a false complaint to the police and the police without verifying the facts have registered the crime. It is further submitted that in order to fulfill the illegal demands of the owner of the complainant and also with an intention to blackmail, harass and humiliate the petitioners and to extract money from the petitioners, the present case has been falsely foisted. It is further submitted that the first petitioner is a Government employee working in Commercial Tax Department and the second petitioner is a student studying B.Tech third year. It is

further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and a perusal of the complaint does not disclose any ingredients of the alleged offences more particularly under Sections 448, 354 and 324 IPC. The petitioners are innocent and not at all connected with the alleged offences and the complaint is a frivolous complaint. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 that they attacked the complainant, his wife and one Shyamala.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 surrenders before the competent Court within a period of fifteen days from today and apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the said Court, on the same day, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

_________________ (G. SRI DEVI, J) 2nd January 2020 RRB