Dismissed

Dukka Somulamma v. State Ofap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2021CRLP/1405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court refused bail because the complainant sustained grievous burn injuries in an acid attack case involving illegal brandy. The court found the petitioner's version of improbable discharge unlikely entailed bail denial.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed.

Dukka Somulamma Vs State Ofap — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABALE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1405 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.63 of 2021 of L. Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 326A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶5

A report is lodged on 23.02.2021 by the de facto complainant, stating that he is a resident of Kittannapeta village, L. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram. It is alleged that on 21.02.2021 at about 7.40P.M. at night time, he went to a shop owned by the 3^rd petitioner/A.3 and asked for a drink for which the 3^rd petitioner said he is in possession of illegal brandy and asked him to buy it. When the de facto complainant refused, the 3^rd petitioner started scolding him in filthy language, caught hold of his lalchi and pushed him. Then petitioners 1 and 2 and two others brought acid and gave it to the 3^rd petitioner, who tried to pour acid on his face, then suddenly the de facto complainant turned back due to which acid fell on his back right cheek, left shoulder, throat, right ear and caused burn injuries. When he raised cries, one Govind came there and saved him and took him to Government Hospital. Basing on the same, the present crime is registered.

LK, J

CRLP.No.1405 of 2021

Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant has lodged the above complaint against the petitioners as a counter blast to the complaint given by the son of the 3^rd petitioner registered as Crime No.62 of 2021 of L. Kota Police Station. He submits that on perusal of the contents of the complaint, it discloses that there is no previous rivalry between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. He submits that the version of the de facto complainant that he was attacked on 21.02.2021 at 7.40P.M. with acid and he got discharged on 22.02.2021 from the hospital and lodged a complaint at 4.00P.M. on 22.02.2021 is highly improbable and unbelievable. Hence, their case may be considered for grant of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the de facto complainant has sustained grievous injuries. He submits that the present case is a counter blast to the complaint given by the petitioners against the de facto complainant will not entail the petitioners to seek pre-arrest bail when the de facto complainant in this case received burn injuries. As such, they are not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

LK, J

CRLP.No.1405 of 2021

Taking into consideration the allegations in the report and

¶16

the fact that the de facto complainant has sustained burn injuries, this court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶18

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

¶19

Date: 15-03-2021

¶20

Ksn

Dukka Somulamma v. State Ofap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dukka Somulamma v. State Ofap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Babu Jaan Vs State of Ap

Kangu Sireesha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeminedi Sri Hari Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Ap

Arjun Lai Mali Vs State of Ap

Nakkalamitta Sreenivasulu Vs State of Ap