Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kothalanka Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1049 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.
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.76 of 2022 of
Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
A case under Sections 417 and 376 IPC was registered
against the petitioner in the above crime.
Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner and the de facto complainant were in love with each
other. They both went to various places like beach, park, hotels
etc. On 13.07.2021, the petitioner and the de facto complainant
went to Araku and there he promised to marry her and thereby
induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and accordingly
he had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he resiled from his
promise and did not marry her. He also refused to marry her when
she requested him. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has
cheated the de facto complainant and thereby committed the
aforesaid offences.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de
facto complainant is aged about 23 years and as such it is a case
of consensual sexual intercourse which they had. He would further
submit that the petitioner never promised to marry her and he did
not induce her to have sexual intercourse with any such false
promise. Therefore, he contends that the facts of the case do not
attract any such offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376
IPC. He would submit that both of them are only friends and as
such they moved at different places in Visakhapatnam. So, he
would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal
Petition. He would submit that the contents of the F.I.R and the
facts of the case clearly show that the petitioner has promised to
marry the de facto complainant and thereby induced her to have
sexual intercourse with him and thereafter he has resiled from the
said promise and cheated the de facto complainant. Therefore,
having regard to the serious nature of the offence, he would submit
that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby
prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.
As rightly contended by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R clearly show that
the petitioner has promised the de facto complainant to marry her
and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and
thereafter he had resiled from the said promise and did not marry
her and cheated her. Therefore, the accusation made against the
petitioner is prima facie well founded from the contents of the said
F.I.R. So, having regard to the serious nature of the offence, this
Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The two judgments of the Apex Court relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra1 and Dr.
Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharastra2 are
the judgments relating to quash of proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. They are not relating to grant of bail in the given facts and
circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 09-03-2022
AKN
2018 SCC OnLine SC 3100
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1049 OF 2022
Date: 09-03-2022
AKN
