Matcha Bhaskara Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4022 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4022 AP
Judgement Date : 8 October, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Matcha Bhaskara Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 October, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5547 of 2021

ORDER:

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

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

to the petitioner/Accused in connection with Crime No.710 of 2021

of Eluru II Town Police Station, wherein the petitioner is alleged to

have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

2. A report was lodged by the defacto complainant on

08.07.2021 stating that he has got two daughters and his second

daughter by name Gayatri Devi (deceased) while studying second

year Degree fell in love with petitioner and both of them eloped and

married in a temple in Jeelakarragudem on 24.06.2017 against the

consent of their parents. Out of wedlock, deceased blessed with a

daughter by name Jahnavitha. It is stated that petitioner addicted

to consume liquor and used to harass the deceased physically and

mentally and he used to beat the deceased. The deceased used to

inform her parents that she was unable to bear the harassment

and she intended to died. On 08.07.2021 at 5.30 p.m. sister-in-law

of deceased telephoned to complainant and informed that deceased

committed suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan. Basing on the

said complaint, the present crime was registered.

3. Heard Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy for Sri Matcha Bhaskara

Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

filed petition under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C seeking default bail,

which was dismissed by Court below observing that petitioner is

alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 498-A and

306 of IPC and the punishment for the offence under Section 306

IPC may be extended upto ten years, as such within 90 days,

petitioner is not entitled for default bail. He submits that in this

case, petitioner is in jail from the last 60 days, as such he is

entitled for default bail. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Rakesk Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam1, wherein it was

held thus:

30. In view of the above discussion, my findings are as follows:

1. I agree with both my learned brothers that the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 applies to all Accused charged with offences under this Act irrespective of the fact whether the action is initiated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, or any other law;

2. Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code is applicable only in cases where the Accused is charged with (i) offences punishable with death and any lower sentence; (ii) offences punishable with life imprisonment and any lower sentence and (iii) offences punishable with minimum sentence of 10 years;

3. In all cases where the minimum sentence is less than 10 years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment then Section 167(2)(a)(ii) will apply and the Accused will be entitled to grant of 'default bail' after 60 days in case charge-sheet is not filed.

4. The right to get this bail is an indefeasible right and this right must be exercised by the Accused by offering to furnish bail.

2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 141 (SC)

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that petitioner is

languishing in jail from the last 60 days and as the police failed to

file charge sheet, he is entitled for default bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor also does not dispute

the fact that petitioner is entitled for default bail, as the offence

alleged to have been committed by him is under Section 306 of

IPC.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and in view

of findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesk Kumar Paul's

case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the

petitioner.

7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the

petitioner /Accused shall be enlarged on bail in connection with

Crime No.710 of 2021 of Eluru II Town Police Station, on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty