Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Manthra Purna Chandra vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 May, 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MAY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANT!

 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3013 OF 2021
Between:
Manthra Purna Chandra, S/o. Niranjan, R/o. Renti Kota Village, Palasa Mandal,
Srikakulam District.

...Petitioner/Accused
AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor , High Court of AP, Amaravathi,
Andhra Pradesh.

... Respondent

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in

the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to
enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in FIR.No.145 of

2021 on the file of the Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the
memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
P.L.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent, the Court made the following.

ORDER:

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3013 OF 2021

ORDER: -

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.145 of 2021 of Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2016 (for short 'SC & ST (POA) Act'.

2. A complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant on 30.03.2021 stating that she got acquaintance with the petitioner through Facebook and they used to speak to each other. The petitioner told that he loved her and he belongs to Rajaka caste and at present he is maintaining a wine shop in Assam. On 07.11.2020 at the request of the petitioner, she met him at Tanuku Bus Stand and the petitioner took her to Visakhapatnam on the pretext of starting business, where they stayed in a lodge room for ten days and during that time, they met physically. Thereafter the petitioner left her at her house and on 14.12.2020 the petitioner came to Mortha and told her parents that he will marry her and took her to Palasa (Kasibugga), where they stayed in a rented house and lived as

wife and husband. Till 15.02.2021 they run a cloth shop in the

name and style of Fashion Mantra and when the complainant asked the petitioner to marry her, he used to postpone the same. Thereafter when the mother and other relations of complainant asked the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner told that he does not like her as she belongs to SC Mala community. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime

was registered.

3. Heard Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the

- petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

Al! Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the complaint reveals bald and omnibus allegations against the petitioner; that as per the judgment in Pramod Suryabhan

Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another!, the offence

under Section 376(1) I.P.C. is not attracted and only with an

-. ulterior motive to take vengeance, a false case is foisted against

the petitioner.

'5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petition itself is not maintainable as the offences alleged in the report includes the offences under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act where the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in the name of caste. He submits that in view of serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, and

the allegations are under the SC & ST (POA) Act, in view of the

1 2019(9) SCC 608

bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner is not

entitled for pre-arrest bail.

6. Though, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, the averments in the report does not disclose the intention. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018 and Writ Petition (C) No.1016 of 2018 between Pruthvi Raj Chauhan and Union of India, has considered the scope of Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act and observed that:

"..concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., shall not apply to the Act. However, if the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act the bar created by Section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply."

bee eee It would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, High Court has to balance two interests i.e. the power is not so used to convert the jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and if such orders ate not made in similar cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. Therefore, I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest

bail would defeat the intention of Parliament."

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and taking into

Fad

consideration of the averments in the complaint, it appears that the only allegation against the petitioner is that in spite of her repeated requests, the. petitioner is postponing to marry her on

- one. pretext or other. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pruthvi Raj Chauhan's case (supra) and the .averments in the complaint, this Court deems it appropriate to

grant pre-arrest bail.

8. . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition | is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.145 of 2021 of Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District on a condition of executing 7 self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kasibugea Police Station, Srikakulam District. He shall appear before the Station House Officer, Kasibugga Police 'Station, Srikakulam District once in a month till charge sheet is

filed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

ITRUE COPY!

m District

Police Station, Srikakula

To, - etati Officer, Kasibugg OPUC] Station House ; 0, Advocate | 5 One CC to Sri. p.L.Narasimha wigh Court of AP [OUT]

3. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor,

4. One spare copy MM

HIGH COURT

LKJ

DATED:27/05/2021