Srungapati Suseel Kumar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5196 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5610 OF 2022

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code

of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973     (for   short,   'Cr.P.C.'),   seeking

anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr.No.81 of

2022 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Vishakhapatnam registered

for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').


2.    The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused made

false promises to defacto complainant that he loves her, intends to

marry her and induced her into a physical relationship, which

would amount to cheating and rape under Sections 417, 376 IPC.

Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner.


3.    Heard Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended

that the petitioner/Accused was falsely implicated in the present

crime and reading of the entire complaint it appears that it is

totally with the consent of a complainant and it is nothing but a

consensus sex. Hence, Section 376 of IPC does not attract.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

petitioner has already preferred a bail application vide bearing

Crl.M.P.No. 2460 of 2022 which was dismissed by the trial court on

the ground that the investigation is pending and the presence of

the petitioner/accused is required and if the petitioner is released,

it would affect the investigation. He further contended that only to

harass the petitioner as he is working in Army, the present crime is

registered and in the event of his arrest, he will lose his job.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case placed a

judgment Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Another1.

On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that investigation

is in progress and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he

may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the

prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for

dismissal of the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of

this Court to para No.4 in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan &

Another2, which reads as follows:

"4. In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been

staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now

if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground

for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC".

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner is working in Army in Jammu and Kashmir, as such it

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

may not be possible to appear before police station except for

investigation purpose.

8. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is a

consensual relation between the petitioner and defacto

complainant and in view of the submissions of learned counsel for

the petitioner and the judgment referred by learned counsel for the

petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner/sole Accused, however the apprehension of the learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing

certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with Cr.No.81 of 2022 of the Maharanipeta Police Station,

Visakhapatnam, on the petitioner executing a self bond for

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties

for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer,

Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

(ii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper

with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to

the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate

proper investigation in this case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the

complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and

any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing

the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-

operate with the investigation.

Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the

above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above

conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation

of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate

application for such cancellation.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit

or restrict the rights of the police or the investigating agency from

further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be

construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of

considering bail in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have

any bearing in any other proceedings.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date : 16.08.2022 AG

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5610 OF 2022

Date : 16.08.2022

AG