Disposed

G. Madhavi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014CRLP/9390/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order grants liberty to the petitioner to surrender and file for regular bail within 15 days instead of dismissing her Section 438 anticipatory bail petition. The court imposed standard conditions including bond, sureties, and non-interference with witnesses, citing her gender and employment despite generally no concession for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to surrender before Magistrate within 15 days to move for regular bail; order shall be disposed of promptly.

G. Madhavi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9390 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner in Crime No.153 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Aspari Police Station, Kurnool District registered against her for the offence punishable under Sections.498-A, 324, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶4

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

A perusal of record reveals that this petitioner is A-2 among five accused none other than mother-in-law of de facto complainant and

¶6

A-1 is husband of de facto complainant. It further clearly reveals disputes and panchayaths by accused persons to treat the de facto complainant well. On the fateful day i.e. on 21-06-2014 all the accused persons at about 11.45 pm having gathered the mother-inlaw who is the petitioner herein by heating iron house hold appliance on the stove and cauterised on the foot of de facto complainant and other accused persons caught hold of her hands and legs without moving despite she was crying. It is from the brutality of the accusation against daughter-in-law manly by this petitioner-A-2 went un-successful twice for anticipatory bail, though others among A-2 to A-5 were granted.

¶7

Taking into consideration of these facts and from the propensity of the crime, though the petitioner being a lady and municipal employee not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, however, taking into consideration of the personal liberty, the

¶8

application rather than dismissal, is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned and move for regular bail within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and in such an event, the learned Judge shall consider the application for granting bail preferably on the same day if not at least by next day; with necessary conditions, which includes the execution of bond with sureties, furnishing of property, bank account and full and correct address particulars, surrender of passport if any noninterference with witnesses, cooperate for investigation remained if any and assurance of availability to face trial.

¶9

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶10

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶11

Date:25-08-2014 nvl

¶12

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8500 of 2014

¶14

01-08-2014 nvl

G. Madhavi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Madhavi 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

P.Krishnama Naidu, Vs The State of A.P.

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu Vs K.S.Vasanthi

Burugu Sri Devi Vs The Public Prosecutor

V. Venkata Rami Reddy S/o. Late v.C.Pakki Reddy Vs a Krishna S/o. a Seethaiah

M/s. E-Channel Vs The State of A.P.

H.M. Baswaraj Vs Smt. Laxmi Samrajyam