Telangana High Court
CRLP/9283/2012 of Kotakonda Vikram Babu Vs THE STATE OF AP. REP PP. HYD. on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.9283 of 2012 ORDER:- The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.512 of 2012 of Pattabhipuram P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 498- A and 494 of I.P.C. The accusation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYCriminal Petition No.9283 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
The petitioner apprehends arrest in Crime No.512 of 2012 ofPattabhipuram P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 498-Aand 494 of I.P.C.
The accusation made against the petitioner is that the petitionermarried the complainant on 18-8-2012 suppressing his earliermarriage with Nalini. When the complainant questioned the petitionerof his marriage with Nalini, the complainant threatened by thepetitioner and his mother with dire consequences. The furtheraccusation is that the petitioner and his mother went to the house ofthe complainant on 4-10-2012 and abused her and the said incidenthas been witnessed by Rajendra Prasad and others.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner that the marriage of the petitioner with Nalini came to beperformed against the wishes of Nalini and the said Nalini neverresided with the petitioner and on the date of the registration of themarriage of the petitioner with the complainant, the marriage betweenthe petitioner and Nalini came to be snapped by the order passed bythe competent Court. A further contention has been made that thepetitioner at no point of time visited the house of the complainant atGuntur and the incident said to have taken place on 4-10-2012 isinvented for the purpose lodging a report and therefore the petitionerdeserves for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondent-State opposed the application on the ground that investigation is pending.
As seen from the report presented by Kotakonda Mrudula, thepetitioner suppressing his first marriage with Nailni, made her to agreefor the marriage and accordingly the marriage came to be performedon 18-8-2012 and registered on 25-9-2012. The incident occurred on4-10-2012 has been witnessed by Rajendra Prasad and others. Suchis the accusation levelled against the petitioner, he does not deservefor grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
28[th] December, 2012smr/gkv
_________________________
B.Seshasayana Reddy, J