This order addresses a Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a government employee seeking anticipatory bail. The court noted the petitioner's employment status and medical evidence refuting abortion allegations, directing notice to the Public Prosecutor for a merits hearing before final disposal.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15998 of 2014
ORDER :
The petitioner, who is A1, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.277 of 2014 of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 509 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. The petitioner is the husband of the informant, who is working in Indian Railways.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the informant with petitioner/A1 took place on 07.08.2009. At the time of marriage, her parents given cash of Rs.5 lakhs, 10 gold bangles weighing 15 sovereigns,, a chain of five sovereigns and necklace of 5 sovereigns. It is alleged that apart from that articles worth Rs.1 lakh were presented. Soon after the marriage, the informant joined with A1 to lead marital life. It is alleged that when she was conceived, the petitioner, his brother and in-laws forced her for abortion. Since April, 2010, her in-laws were demanding the informant for additional dowry of Rs.1,80,000/- and they forcibly collected gold jewellery worth Rs.1,80,000/-. In the month of October, 2010, when the informant gave birth to a child, the accused did not visit the hospital as she gave birth to a female child and all the hospital expenses borne by the father of the informant. When the informant joined her husband in 2013, it is alleged to have been demanded her father for money, as such her father deposited Rs.60,000/- in State Bank of India, Market Branch, Guntur. Then A1 is alleged to have taken ATM of the informant and withdrew the said amount. It is alleged that on 20.09.2014, the petitioner and his brother at the instigation of their parents caught hold of her tuft and demanded additional dowry. As the informant could not meet the same, the informant left the
matrimonial home. Basing on these allegations, the above report was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the report are vague in nature and invented for the purpose of the case. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState, opposed the petition.
4. The allegation in the report made by the informant that she was forcibly aborted, appears to be incorrect for the reason that the medical report issued by Care Hospitals would show that the said pregnancy was aborted due to bleeding in vagina as she was suffering from ammenorrhoea.
5. Since the petitioner is a Government employee, he is directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate and make an application after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor and the Magistrate shall be dealt with the same on merits in accordance with law on the same day.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
___________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 30th December, 2014 pab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be disposed of without merit hearing.
Whether the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail requires consideration on merits or notice to the Public Prosecutor.
Whether the allegations of abortion in the initial report were medically inaccurate, affecting the reliability of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A1 (Petitioner)
The State
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
