Galla Raghavendra Rao Raghava vs State Of Andhra Rpadesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3154 AP

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4668 of 2021

ORDER:-

      This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to

the petitioner/Accused in connection with Crime No.90 of 2021 of

Kondepi      Police   Station,   Prakasam     District   for   the   offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 376 of IPC.

2.    A report was lodged by the de facto complainant stating that

she has acquaintance with petitioner for the last four years and loved

each other. Petitioner is married and blessed with two children. He

used to talk to her over phone. It is stated that about two months

back, when she was alone in her house, the petitioner came to her

house and forcibly had intercourse with her. When her parents

looked marriage alliance to her, petitioner with an intention to marry

her, informed to elders of both sides about their love. When mother

of de facto complainant asked the petitioner to marry her daughter,

he refused to marry her. Basing on the said report, the present crime

is registered.


3.    Heard Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the

petitioner    and     learned    Assistant   Public   Prosecutor     for   the

respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that none of the

allegations in the complaint attracts the offences under Sections 420

and 376 of IPC against the petitioner. In 164 Cr.P.C statement of the

complainant, where she has categorically mentioned that she is

aware of the fact that petitioner is married and having children and

even as per the report, the de facto complainant is not even

interested to marry the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

relied on the judgments reported in Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs.

State of C.G1, in Vikul Bakshi Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)2, in

Vishal Grover Vs. State3, in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs.

State of Maharashtra4 and in Sumit Kumar Vs. State (Govt) of

NCT5 and submits that every breach of promise to marry cannot be

said to be either cheating or rape. Hence, the petitioner's case may

be considered for grant of bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that entire

investigation is completed and seven witnesses witnesses are

examined.

6. Taking into consideration the statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C of the de facto complainant, this Court finds prima facie that

the allegations against the petitioner do not attract the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 375 of IPC, this Court deems it

appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/

Accused shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.90 of

2021 of Kondepi Police Station, Prakasam District, on his executing

self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two

sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of the

(2011) 4 CGLI 582

(2016) 1 JCC 54

(2017) 1 JCC 19

(2015) AllMR (Cri) 2805

(2016) 3 JCC 2180

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur, Prakasam

District.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date: 24.08.2021 KA

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Allowed)

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4668 of 2021

Date: 24.08.2021

KA