← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/8018/2017dismissed

Panku Prathap v. The State Of A.P.,

2017-09-13T.Sunil Chowdary2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8018 OF 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Cr.No.314 of 2017 on the file of Station House Officer, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, Anantapur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 354, 307 and 506 IPC, filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case as he refused to work in the crush unit of the de facto complainant. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner; therefore, it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that the de facto complainant sustained injuries on various parts of the body; therefore, it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12.07.2017, the petitioner inflicted knife injuries on the de facto complainant.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 9 days in lodging the complaint. Mere delay in lodging the complaint by itself is not a valid ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner without taking into consideration the other attending circumstances.

5.

A perusal of the C.D. file reveals that the de facto complainant, who is a lady, received four injuries on different parts of the body. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offence.

6.

Taking into consideration the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the stage of investigation, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J DATED: 13-09-2017.

Hsd