Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Naganaboina Teja vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 April, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2644 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on
bail in the event of his arrest.
2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.121 of 2022 of Bapatla
Town Police Station, Guntur District.
3. A case under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C') and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act') was registered
against the petitioner along with A-2 in the above crime.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the
victim girl is a minor and was a student and when she was
going to college that the petitioner herein used to follow her
regularly and insisted her to love him. He also used to
threatened her to kill if she does not agree for his love proposal.
The deceased informed the same to her mother who is the de
facto complainant. The petitioner also stated that he is
influenced person and he would kill her, her mother and also
her younger sister. As the deceased has no father, and as she
was unable to bear the torture of the petitioner, she moved with
him. Subsequently, the petitioner resiled from his promise and
did not come forward to marry her. It is stated that the
petitioner and his mother who is A-2 demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs
from the deceased to accept for their marriage. He also
threatened her that he would marry another girl. Therefore, in
the said circumstances, as the deceased was subjected to severe
mental agony she committed suicide. So, it is stated that the
petitioner is responsible for the suicidal death of the deceased.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no
suicidal note was left by the deceased to show that the
petitioner herein is responsible for the suicidal death of the
deceased. He would further contend that as it is a case under
Section 306 of IPC relating to abetment to commit suicide that
the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of
IPC are not fulfilled. Therefore, he would submit that the
accusation made against the petitioner is not well founded and
thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
stating that he would cooperate for investigation if he is
enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal
petition. He would submit that the facts of the case show that
the petitioner is responsible for the suicidal death of the
deceased. It is stated that as he refused to marry her and
demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs towards dowry to marry her that she
was subjected to severe mental agony on account of the conduct
of the petitioner and committed suicide. He would submit that
the investigation in this case is at initial stage and the crime has
to be investigated to ascertain the ingredients contemplated
under Section 107 of IPC. Therefore, he would submit that the
petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail at this stage as it
cannot be held at this stage that the petitioner did not abet the
deceased to commit suicide. So, he would pray for dismissal of
the petition.
8. No doubt, in order to constitute an offence punishable
under Section 306 of IPC, the necessary ingredients
contemplated under Section 107 of IPC regarding intentional
instigation or aid said to have been given by the accused to the
deceased are to be established. The investigation is still at the
initial stage and it has got long way to go. Prima facie the
allegations ascribed against the petitioner would show that it is
on account of the conduct of the petitioner herein that the
deceased has committed suicide. Whether there is intentional
instigation or aid given to commit suicide or not are the matters
to be ascertained and established during the course of
investigation. At this stage, it cannot be held that the
ingredients contemplated under Section 107 of IPC are not
satisfied, as the same is to be ascertained during the course of
investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that at this stage that
the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie not
well founded.
9. A reading of the allegations ascribed in the F.I.R clearly
show that on account of the conduct of the petitioner herein,
who subjected the deceased to mental agony and made her to
yield before him by threats and false promises and on account
of the fact that subsequently the petitioner resiled from the
promise to marry the deceased that she was subjected to mental
agony which lead to her suicidal death. The two judgments
relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished
on facts and they cannot be applied at this stage to the facts of
the case. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the
case and having regard to the gravity of the offence, this Court
is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant of
pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
10. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 27.04.2022
KA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2644 OF 2022
Date : 27.04.2022
KA
