Allowed

Narla Naga Swetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/5235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused under domestic and caste-related allegations. The court noted the vacancy regarding the accused being the two accused in the FIR filed at Araku Police Station.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted anticipatory bail; directed to surrender within 10 days, execute bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with witnesses.

Narla Naga Swetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

d€±

¶2

lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA\ WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST l1^/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE :PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5235 OF 2023

¶4

Betwee n :

¶5

Narla Naga Swetha, W/o. Narla Ramesh, Aged 32 years, R/o.D.No.1-020, Near Hermon Prayer House, Aruku village, Aruku Colony, Visakhapatnam-531149 (AIIina Swatha Mani as per Aadhaar)

¶6

Petitioner/A-2

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Premises, Amaravathi.

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory 'Bail to the Petitioner/A-2 in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.28 of 2023 on the file of Station House Officer, Araku P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District .

¶11

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G RAMA GOPAL Advocate for -the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the court made the following ORDER

¶12

THE HON'BLE SKI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5235 OF 2023

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Accused No.2 in Crime No.28 of 2023 of Araku Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, filed the present application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶16

The above Crirhe was registered under Sections 420, 376, 5O6 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)IV), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that, the de-facto complainant and the accused No.1 (who is husband of the petitioner) were doing hotel business under the name and style of {{Star Annapurna Multi-cuisine Hotel'' situated at Araku. The husband of the de-facto complainant is no more and as such the accused No.1 promised the de-facto complalnant that he will marry and look after the de-facto ~complainant and her daughter. Thereafter, the accused No.1 is also given partnership in the said hotel. Subsequently, -dF®

¶18

certain issues were raised. The allegation made against the petitioner is that she also used to quarrel with the de-facto complainant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, so far as the petitioner who is shown as accused No.2 is concerned, nothing has been attributed to her except stating that, she also used to quarrel with the de-facto complainant and the other allegation against the petitioner herein is that, she abused the de-facto complalnant in the name of caste.

¶20

on the other hand, the learned special Assistant public Prosecutor opposes the petition.

¶21

~ 6. This Courtperused the entirematerial onrecord.

¶22

All the allegations made by the de-facto complainant are directed against the accused No.1, who is the husband of the petitioner. so far as the offences punishable under the provisions of the scheduled castes and the scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, the report of the de-facto complainant is silent as to when and where the alleged incident has happened. A vague allegation is made against the petitioner alleging the offences punishable under

¶23

-- I_

¶24

¶25

the provisions of the scheduled castes and the scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that view of the matter, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner is directed to surrender before station House officer, Araku police station, Alluri sitharama Raju District, within a period of Ten (10) days from today. on such surrender, the station House officer, Araku police station, Alluri sitharama Raju District, shall release the petitioner on bail, on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each, to his satisfaction. After release, the petitioner herein is directed to co-operate with the investigation and also directed not to tanper with the witnesses.

¶27

Accordingly, the present criminal petition is allowed.

¶28

t §d/i -ffi.~§RINIVAS

\--_ _ _

/ ASSISTANTF3'TnR-AR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

For , SECTION OFFICER ---------_

¶34

The Station House officer, Araku p.s., AIlur,I Sjtharama RaJ'u DI'Strict .

¶35

One CC to sRl. G RAMA GOPAL Advocate [opuc]

¶36

Two ccs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H,'gh court ofA.P[OUT]

¶37

One spare copy.

psk

HIGH 'COURT

KSRJ

DATED.. 09/08/2023

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.5235 of 2023

ALLOWED

J. b-. L= Lzd.di-A_l± 'r==¥; •=#9 •REEi EFE=- us-)j _A,J,b S'r. t . a-'
\ `l
i.--I.. i/ -l- i

Narla Naga Swetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narla Naga Swetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Preem at Prem Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lishan Kanari Pushpan, Vs State of A.P.

Beru Lal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Imandi Siva Dhanush Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ravidran at Ranjith Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Khaja Garib at Khaja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh