Telangana High Court
CRLP/9266/2012 of Mohd. Murthuza Khan Feroz, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.9266 of 2012 ORDER:- The petitioner is A .1 in Cr.No.354 of 2012 of Falaknuma Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 498- A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accusation made against the
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.
Arguments
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDYCriminal Petition No.9266 of 2012
ORDER:-
The petitioner is A.1 in Cr.No.354 of 2012 of Falaknuma PoliceStation, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C. andSections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The accusation made against the petitioner is that he along withother accused harassed the complainant –Smt.Fareen Farzana @Saba on the ground of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and necked herout from the matrimonial home.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nospecific accusations have been made against the petitioner in thecomplaint lodged by Smt.Fareen Farzana @ Saba and therefore hedeserves for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondent-State opposed the petition on the ground that investigationis pending.
As seen from the complaint presented by Smt.Fareen Farzana @Saba, the petitioner is stated to have demanded Rs.50,000/- towardsadditional dowry and beat her on that ground and ultimately neckedher out from the matrimonial home. Such is the accusation levelledagainst the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
________________________
B.Seshasayana Reddy, J
28[th] December, 2012
Smr/gkv