This order dismisses a bail petition filed for anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. 438. The court found prima facie material that the petitioner, a TV reporter, cheated the complainant and threatened his life, thus finding grounds to deny bail.
Pre-arrest bail petition dismissed; petitioner denied bail.
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 M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1750 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner/ Accused apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.11 of 2017 of Kuppam Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant by name S. Rasheed working as a Manager in Andhrabhoomi daily news paper at Rayachoty, lodged a complaint dated 09.02.2017 with SHO, Kuppam Police Station, alleging that he developed acquaintance with the petitioner who is working as 10 TV reporter in Chittoor. Thereafter they used to talk over phone, often. He used to met the petitioner whenever he went to Chittoor. About two months back, the petitioner telephoned him saying that he will provide the Manager post in Andhrabhoomi daily newspaper for Kadapa District, for that he has to arrange an amount of Rs.50,000/, believing the words of the petitioner, he came to Kuppam with an amount of Rs.50,000/- and paid the same to the petitioner and returned back to his Village. From then onwards, he used to contact the petitioner regularly by phone, but not responding to the phone calls, in one way or the other and dodging the matter, when he demanded to comply the promise. On enquiry of his friends, he came to know that they were also induced by the petitioner. Thereafter he telephoned the petitioner on 07.02.2017 about this incident. On 09.02.2017 the petitioner telephoned and called him to Kuppam, thereby he came to Kuppam at about 11.00 a.m. and advised him to
MSM, J Crl.P. No.1750 of 2017
come near park opposite to the bus stand. When he reached the park, all of sudden the petitioner threatened him and scolded in filthy language saying that it is true that he collected money from him and complain the same to whomsoever he like. Thus, the petitioner allegedly committed serious offence, taking advantage of his position as 10 TV reporter and the same is published in paper.
As seen from the material on record, the petitioner, being a TV reporter, took advantage of his position, collected huge amount from the complainant, inducing him dishonestly to part with huge amount which would attract the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. as the act would fall within the definition of Section 415 I.P.C. Therefore, I find prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he committed the offence and there is every possibility of threatening the witness and interfere with the further investigation being a TV reporter. Therefore, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
20.03.2017 BV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to a TV reporter accused of cheating and threatening the complainant.
Whether the petitioner's position as a reporter creates a possibility of interfering with investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
S. Rasheed
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
