Court disposed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 420 and 354 IPC. Anticipatory bail was declined; applicant directed to surrender and regular bail application.
Anticipatory bail denied; applicant advised to surrender and file regular bail application.
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.3979 of 2015
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is A-1, in Cr.No.168 of 2015 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 354 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as under:
One Sravana Keerthi lodged a report alleging that she is working in Kek Innovations Private Limited, Madhapur from 24-122014. The petitioner who is the Managing Director of said company collected Rs.50,000/- from each employee as a deposit and offered salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. But A-1 never paid salary to the employees of the said company. When the informant requested for her salary, the petitioner is alleged to have abused her in filthy language, misbehaved with her and also called one Raghupathi Reddy over phone asking him to come to their company address to maintain physical relationship with the informant apart from threatening the victims of fraud with dire consequences. Basing on these allegations, the above report came to be lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the report are false and invented for the purpose of this case.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
A perusal of the averments in the report would show that there is no motive for the informant to lodge a false case against the petitioner.
In fact, no motive is established to show that the present report has been filed with an ulterior motive. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that voice conversations between the informant and one Prasanth were submitted to the concerned police, the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions disputes the said fact.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and since the allegations against the accused are grave and serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the petitioner, if so, advised shall surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for bail before the appropriate Court after giving notice to the Public Prosecutor, in which event, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law on the same day or at the earliest. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 28-04-2015 nvl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and sexual harassment.
Whether the circumstances warrant proceeding under Sections 420 and 354 IPC by way of bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A-1
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
