Dismissed

Bathina Rama Nagu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Sept 2023CRLP/6611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC seeking protection against arrest for alleged offences under Sections 420, 493, and 323 IPC. The judge held that a prima facie case existed for the non-bailable charge under Section 493 IPC and noted the accused's lack of cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was denied.

Bathina Rama Nagu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Criminal Petition No.6611 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to the petitioner/A1 in the event of his arrest in Crime No.6 of 2023 of Mandavalli Police Station, Eluru District for the offence punishable under Section 420, 493 and 323 r/w 34 IPC.

¶5

Ms. Priyanvita, learned counsel representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced arguments. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State advanced arguments.

¶6

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner/A1 had cohabitated with the defacto complainant and tied Tali to her in a temple on 25.08.2021 and later cheated her and further that when she along with village elders and parents went to the house of parents of A.1, they did not listen to her and picked up quarrel and abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands and legs and dragged her by catching tuft of her hair and did not heed the words of the villagers.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit any offence. She

¶8

¶9

further submitted that the petitioner is working as constable and his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶10

She further submitted that the defacto complainant was already married to another person previously in the year 2011 and suppressed the same fact and gave a complaint. She further submitted that the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted to the present case as the said provision involves an offence being committed against property, further that even according to version of the defacto complinant , she gave consent and lived with the petitioner for two years and later lodged the complaint due to some incompatibility.

¶11

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner is not available for arrest inspite of several efforts by the Police and that event of granting anticipatory bail to him, he would not face the trial. The record under Section 420 IPC reads as follows:

¶12

“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶13

The petitioner is accused of offence under section 323, 420 and 493 IPC. The trial Court has to examine the provision under Section 417 IPC, if not section 420 IPC and therefore it is

¶14

¶15

premature to express any opinion on this aspect. That apart, the petitioner is accused of section 493 IPC which is a nonbailable offence. Of course, the offence under section 323 IPC is a bailable offence.

¶16

As can be seen from the allegations, there is prima facie the case made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 493 IPC besides disputed application of the other provisions which is to be examined by the trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation agency for conducting investigation. Earlier also, this court dismissed the Crl.P.No.3094 of 2023 on merits holding that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1.

¶17

Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

21.09.2023 NSM

166

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶24

Crl.P.No. 6611 of 2023

¶25

21.09.2023

¶26

NSM

Bathina Rama Nagu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathina Rama Nagu 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

Singanamala Lakshmi Devi Vs Singanamala Lakshmi Narayana

Yerubandi Ramesh Narayana Vs Bhogavalli Rajeswara Rao at Raja

M.Ramamurthy, Vs The Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams

Transpacific Shipping Dmcc Vs Octagone International Fze

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil