Partly allowed

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC1 Nov 2013CRLP/5921/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal petitions seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused in a dowry harassment and cruelty case, the bench observed that while bail for most accused could be maintained, the lower court failed to consider specific serious allegations against Accused No.5. Consequently, bail for him was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Accused No.5 is cancelled; he is directed to surrender within ten days, failing which a Non-Bailable warrant may be issued. Bail for other accused remains unaffected.

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha Vs The State of Ap. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5920, 5921 & 5922 of 2013

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Since all these criminal petitions arise out of same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

Criminal petition Nos.5920, 5921 and 5922 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

¶5

As seen from the complaint, the de facto complainant is resident of Tanuku and that her marriage with A.1 was solemnized on 31.07.2012. It is also her case that on 13.06.2012, engagement ceremony was held and her parents presented an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, one kilogram silver and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her in-laws. It is also her case that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, A.5 and wife of A.5 demanded Rs.20,00,000/- additional dowry and informed her that since the demanded additional dowry is not paid, the marriage could not be consummated. It is also alleged that though there was no consummation of marriage, she was physically and mentally harassed and her in-laws snatched 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments presented to her by her parents at the time of marriage. It is also her case that on 19.12.2012, she was taken to Dwaraka Tirumala and her mother-in-law threatened her that if she informs anybody that her husband is impotent, the consequences would be serious. It is further alleged that on 25.12.2012 at about 02.00 PM in the absence of her mother, A.5 entered into her room and told her that her husband cannot provide marital happiness and solicited her intimacy, then he caught hold her hand and pulled her saree. It is also her case that due to fear she came out of the said room and meanwhile seeing that her mother was returning back, A.5 ran away. It is also her case that when her mother questioned her mother-in-law, A.5 and the wife of A.5, threatened her mother. It is also

¶6

alleged that on 06.03.2013, the accused entered into her house and when her husband/A.1 had caught hold her, her father-in-law and others beat her and that A.5 pulled her saree and insulted her. All the respondents herein filed separate anticipatory bail petitions, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, granted anticipatory bails to the respondents which are in challenge in these petitions.

¶7

Heard both the learned counsel.

¶8

Sri Davvulur Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the serious allegations made against the accused and granted anticipatory bail to them. It is further submitted that though specific allegations of dowry harassment have been made and specific allegation has been made against A.5, the learned Sessions Judge did not take those allegations into consideration. It is also submitted that on the date of grant of anticipatory bail, investigation has not completed.

¶9

Sri Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the anticipatory bails were granted in the month of April 2013 after completion of investigation. It is also submitted that having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the respondents.

¶10

The only point that arises for consideration is that whether the impugned order is sustainable?

¶11

As far as grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is the discretionary power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail. However, while exercising discretionary powers, the Courts have to exercise the same with care and caution. Normally, anticipatory bail should be granted in a case where the allegations on the face of it appears to be false and where it appears that the arrest of accused is not necessary and would result in unnecessary harassment. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. However, the nature of allegations should

¶12

be kept in mind. As far as the allegations of dowry harassment are concerned, of course, in this case though there are allegations, but there seems to be omnibus allegations against all the accused. Similarly, with regard to the allegations of physical and mental torture, the same can be termed as omnibus allegations. As far as A.1 is concerned, the main controversy appears to be that the de facto complainant alleges that he is an impotent, whereas the same is disputed by A.1. According to Sri Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the respondents, the police investigation reveals that A.1 was subjected to medical examination and there is nothing on record to say that he is impotent.

¶13

In the above circumstances, it appears that there is nothing to reconsider the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6. As far as accused No.5 is concerned, it is clear that specific allegation has been made against him. It is alleged that he entered the room of the de facto complainant when she was alone and he solicited her company and told that her husband cannot give marital happiness. It is alleged that he had not only solicited, but also caught hold the hand of the de facto complainant and pulled her saree. In view of the specific allegation made against A.5., I am of the view that the lower Court ought to have considered the specific allegations made against him before granting anticipatory bail to him. Unfortunately the lower Court has not even referred to specific allegation made against A.5 while granting anticipatory bail to him in Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2013. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the order passed by the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.470 of 2013, as far as the A.5 is concerned, the same stands set aside. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to A.5 stands cancelled. A.5 is directed to surrender before the trial Court within ten (10) days from today, failing which the learned Magistrate may issue Non-Bailable warrant against him. As far as the other respondents are concerned, I am of the view that there is nothing to

¶14

interfere with the orders passed by the lower Court.

¶15

Accordingly, the Crl.P.Nos.5920 and 5921 stands dismissed. As far as Crl.P.No.5922 of 2013 is concerned, it is partly allowed.

¶16

______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶17

Date: 01.11.2013 ska

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Rajendra Naidu (A-9) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Depot Manager, Vs Kodipaka Gopal

Metta Peda Sidda Reddy (died) Vs Metta Seetharami Reddy

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha Vs The State

Mohd Ilyas Khan Vs Syed Khaleelulla Khadry

Bunga Baby Kumari, Vs State of A.P.