Dismissed

Nakka Gangaraju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Nov 2017CRLP/10252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court entertained a Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of offences including cheating and sexual assault and the severity of allegations, the Court held it was not a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.10252 of 2017 allowed. Petitioner/Accused granted anticipatory bail.

Nakka Gangaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10252 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, and perused the record.

¶5

This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.39 of 2016 of Inavilli Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 IPC.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that all allegations made in the report lodged before the police on 27.02.2016 are false. There is no love affair between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. No panchayat was held as reported to the police. The petitioner did not promise to marry the de facto complainant and ultimately, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner/accused.

¶7

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant. Her consent for sex was obtained by promising to marry her. It is by deception. When the petitioner did not marry her, she made an attempt to commit suicide by

¶8

¶9

consuming pesticide. It is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶10

The report lodged with the police reveals that there was love affair between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and the petitioner promised to marry her before, he had sexual intercourse. On number of occasions, both were caught red-handed. In the panchayat held before the elders, parents of the petitioner also agreed to perform the marriage between the parties. Thereafter, no such marriage was performed. The point whether Section 376 IPC has application to the case on hand or not cannot be decided in this Criminal Petition and it can only be decided after due trial. Further, as per the record placed before this Court, the allegations are grave and gravity of offence is also severe. It is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶12

____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶13

2^nd NOVEMBER, 2017.

¶14

kvni

Nakka Gangaraju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakka Gangaraju 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

Muppiri Raj SAndeep Vs The State of a.P,.

Muthukuri Srinivasa Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muthukuri Srinivasa Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramachandraiah Goud Vs State of Telangana

Ramachandraiah Goud Vs State of Telangana

Sunkari Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh