This criminal petition challenged bail granted to the accused in a matrimonial dispute case. The High Court held that the trial court was not faulted for allowing bail, considering the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and lack of material on threats, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Criminal Petition No.4198 of 2019
ORDER :
1. In this petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner- de facto complainant seeks to cancel the bail granted to A1 & A2 by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.1984/2019 in Cr.No.176/2019.
2. A1 & A2 and others are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 & 495 IPC in Cr.No.176/2019 of A.S.Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada. The trial Court considering that Sections 494 & 495 IPC are bailable offences and Sections 498A & 406 IPC are amenable to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1 granted them bail. The same is challenged in this petition.
3. Heard Sri Cheruvu Phani Teja, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Public Prosecutor representing the fourth respondentState.
4. It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioner that the accused are threatening the petitioner- de facto complainant and witnesses. It is further argued that though as per the Central Law Section 495 IPC is a bailable offence, as per the Cr.P.C. (A.P.
1 2014 (5) SCC 324
Amendment) [Act 3/1992] w.e.f. 15.02.1992, Section 495 IPC is a non-bailable offence and therefore, the trial Court erred in treating the said offence as bailable offence and granting bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. As can be seen from the F.I.R. and remand report, A1 & A2 allegedly committed offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 & 495 IPC and hence, Cr.No.176/2019 is registered and investigated into. Be that as it may, the offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of three years and it is a non-bailable offence; the offence under Section 494 IPC as per the Central Code of Criminal Procedure is punishable with imprisonment of seven years and it is a bailable offence, however, as per the A.P. Amendment Act 3/1992 the said offence is non-bailable offence; the offence under Section 495 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of ten years and it is a bailable offence as per the Central Law, but, however, as per the A.P. Amendment Act 3/1992 it is a non-bailable offence; the offence under Section 498-A IPC is punishable with imprisonment of three years and it is a non-bailable offence. In that view of the matter, the offences under Sections 406, 494 and 498-A IPC can be said to be amenable to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and to the guidelines rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar ’s case (supra). Therefore, the trial Court cannot be found fault for granting bail for the said
offences. So far as Section 495 IPC is concerned, it is punishable with ten years imprisonment and it is a non-bailable offence as per the A.P. Amendment. Even then under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. a Judicial Magistrate of First Class is competent to grant bail taking into consideration Section 437 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate having considered that LWs 1 to 7 were examined and also keeping in view the judgment in Arnesh Kumar ’s case (supra) granted bail to A1 & A2. Merely because he has not taken into consideration the A.P. Amendment to Section 494 & 495 IPC, bail cannot be cancelled on that ground. Though the petitioner complains that the accused are threatening her and witnesses, no material is placed to that effect.
In that view of the matter, I find no merits in this petition and accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
05.09.2019 MVA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in granting bail despite local amendments making sections 406, 494, and 495 IPC non-bailable?
Whether the absence of material regarding threats to the petitioner warrants cancellation of bail granted?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharRelied on¶5
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
2 provisions across 2 enactments
De facto Complainant
Respondent State
U. Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
