The Court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused charged under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. The Court found specific serious allegations and concluded the gravity of the offence did not warrant bail.
Petition dismissed; accused directed to surrender within 15 days to apply for regular 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.
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.980 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.15 of 2020 of P.S. Manakondur, Karimnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.
In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 12.01.2020 alleging that on the same day at 2.30 pm his son was taken away by A-1 and A-2 to Pochamma Temple on a bike, where two others were also present in the auto and when one person caught hold of the son of the complainant, A-1 stabbed him with knife and A-2 beat with a beer bottle on his head with an intention to kill him, as a result, the son of the complainant received bleeding injuries on his right hand and left side of the head.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 would submit that the petitioners have not committed any such offence and not at all used any knife. The alleged injuries are only laceration and abrasion and there is no such intention to the petitioners to commit the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation
2
and are ready to furnish the sureties. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.
As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 that they caused bleeding injuries to the victim by using knife and beer bottle with an intention to kill him.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.
The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 surrender before the competent Court within a period of fifteen days from today and apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the said Court, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ (G. SRI DEVI, J)
4th March 2020 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused charged with attempt to murder involving use of weapon to kill.
Whether the gravity of the offence precludes grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A-1 and A-2
State
G. Sri Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
