Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vadakari Jagadish Prasad, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 March, 2021
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
'PRESENT: ©
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI -
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1230 OF 2021
Between:
Vadakari Jagadish Prasad, S/o. V.Somalingam, aged 31 years, 10-30 Neyyali
Street, Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam.
...Petitioner/Accused-1
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the SHO of Kancharapalem P.S.,
Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi.
...Respondent/Complainant
Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in
the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased
to pass an order to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.1 in connection with the
Crime in FIR No.659/2020 dated 29-12-2020 of SHO of Kancharapalem PS
Visakhapatnam by directing the police to release the petitioner/ A.1 in the event of his
arrest.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the
memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath, Advocate for the Petitioner and af'Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent, the Court made the following.
ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Criminal Petition No.1230 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.")
seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A.1 in the event of his
arrest in connection with Crime No.659 of 2020 of
Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
2. A complaint is lodged on 29.12.2020 by the de facto
complainant stating that both herself and the petitioner are
related to each other and they are in love for the last two years
and their love affair was accepted by their parents stating that
they will perform marriage after they settle in life. It is alleged
that taking advantage of the same, the petitioner had sexual
intercourse with the de facto complainant and thereafter they
moved freely. On 27.07.2019 when the de facto complainant
was alone in her house, the petitioner came to the house and
had sexual intercourse with her and continued the same even
thereafter as and when the de facto complainant was alone.
When the de facto complainant asked him about their marriage,
the petitioner was postponing the same on pretext or the other
and later he blocked her phone number. Later, the de facto
complainant came to know that the parents of the petitioner are
in search of marriage alliance for the petitioner. It is stated that
Dd
2 | LK, J
CRLP.No.1230 of 2021
thereby they cheated the de facto complainant. Basing on the
Said complaint, the present crime is registered.
3, Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
ingredients under Section 376 IPC are not attracted as the de
facto complainant and the petitioner are related to each other
and the relationship is consensual. Learned counsel placed a
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and
others rendered in Criminal] Appeal No.1443 of 2018 dated
22.11.2018.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the allegations in the complaint clearly attract
Section 376 and 420 IPC. He submits that the investigation is in
progress and since grave allegations are levelled against the
petitioner, he is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
6. Taking into consideration the allegations in the complaint,
prima facie, this court feels that the ingredients of Section 376
IPC are not attracted, as such, this court deems it appropriate
to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
petitioner/A.1 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest
in connection with Crime No.659 of 2020 of Kancharapalem
3 LK, J
CRLP.No.1230 of 2021
Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, on his executing
personal bond for Rs.20,000 /- (Rupees twenty thousand only)
with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the
Station House Officer, Kancharapalem Police Station,
Visakhapatnam District.
a
| U. SRIDEVI
| ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
\
i
l
i
To ITRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER
4. The Station House Officer, Kancharapalem Police Station; Visantrepeccranrr
2. One CC to Sri. Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT]
4. One spare copy.
MSB
Pp
HIGH COURT
LK,J
DATED:03/03/2021
ORDER
CRLP.No.1230 of 2021
DIRECTION
. anwar
