Telangana High Court
CRLP/15306/2014 of Mudukuri Seetha Rama Raju, Vs The State of A.P, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.15306 of 2014 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the sole accused, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.219 of 2014 of Chebrole Police Station, West
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
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:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15306 of 2014
The petitioner, who is the sole accused, filed the presentapplication under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the eventof his arrest in connection with Crime No.219 of 2014 of ChebrolePolice Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 417, 376(2) (i) IPC and Section 5 (J)(2) and Section 6 of POSCO Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, who is agedabout 15 years, studied up to 8[th] class and could not study further dueto poverty. One Polamma, who is working in a hotel viz; Rajesh Mealshotel, was staying in a room taken on rent, belonging to the house ofthe informant. The petitioner, who is the son of owner of the said hotel,used to come to the informant’s house to call Polamma for attendingduties. As such, he developed acquaintance with the informant, luredher with a promise to marry her and thereafter committed sexualassault on her. As a result, the informant became pregnant. When thematter was placed before the elders, the petitioner agreed to marry theinformant. Subsequently, he went back on his promise, therebycheating the informant. Basing on these allegations, the above reportcame to be lodged.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedPublic Prosecutor for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even acceptingthe allegations in the report to be true, no offence is made out againstthe petitioner. According to him, the informant was already married toone Surendra and the present report has been lodged only with anintention to extract money from the petitioner.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail contending that theinformant is aged about 15 years and as the allegations in the reportmake out a prima facie case, the petitioner does not deserve grant ofanticipatory bail.
6. A perusal of the material placed before the Court and theaverments in the First Information Report would show that theinformant is aged about 15 years as on the date of commission ofoffence and she was lured by the petitioner with a promise to marry herand thereafter cohabited with her. Pursuant to which, the informantbecame pregnant and when the matter was placed before the elders,the petitioner initially agreed to marry but subsequently went back onhis promise.
7. Having regard to the said circumstances, this Court is of the viewthat prima facie ingredients constituting the offences punishable underSections 376 and 417 IPC are made out against the petitioner. Assuch, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
________________________
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
30-12-2014nvl