B. Girija Manohar

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2013.

Crl.M.P.No.2063/2013.

Between:

1. Chadalavada Ravi Krishna.

2. Junnu Mariyamma.

3. Pulugu Rambabu....Petitioners.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Bapatla Rural Police Station. (Crime No.49/2013).…Respondent.

This petition came up on this day for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri V.R.Chejarla, advocate for petitioners; learned Public Prosecutor for respondent; written arguments filed on behalf of petitioners and upon perusing the petition and material papers available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is by a

Panchayat Secretary, Junior Assistant and P.S., Padamara Bapatla

Panchayat, Guntur District seeking for an order that they shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest by the respondent/police, though their names have not been mentioned in the complaint which was registered as an FIR under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2.Written submissions were filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor is heard. CD file submitted.

3.The petitioners sought for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the defacto-complainant Prema Rani is an inhabitant of

Sungupalemkoduru village and the group leader of Damayanthi

Economy Group, also the President for Mandal Mutual Aided Co- operative Mahila Society of P.V.Palem Mandal and elected as

District Confederation President to Mutual Aided Co-operative

Mahila Societies. There is a Government scheme to protect the economy of poor women, where call centers were arranged for an 2 insurance scheme under the aegis of LIC of India called as ‘Bhima

Mithra’. Under that scheme, when the policy holders passes away, a claim can be made under the policy for Rs.25,000-00. A complaint was lodged with the respondent/police that the scheme was misused, where even on behalf of living persons also, claims have been made by submitting fake documents like death certificates and others by managing the village officials, and amounts have been drawn. This fraud was published on 18-2- 2013 in Eenadu District Edition, which the Project Director, DRDA took cognizance of, and at his instructions, an enquiry was held.

During enquiry, after recording statements of nominees concerned, it was found, that 13 claims have been made on behalf of policy holders who were though alive, by obtaining forged documents. On which, a complaint was given and the respondent/police registered it under Sections 420, 468 and 471

IPC. The police during investigation, have arrested 5 persons and they were remanded to judicial custody. Among them, two accused have been released and the other 3 accused are in judicial custody.

4.The petitioners state that though they were not involved in the fraud allegedly committed, in any way nor issued any documents facilitating the false claims, the police are giving out openly that, they were also involved in the crime and they would be arrested. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend their arrest on false charges and if they are so arrested, they would be put to hardship, their jobs would be at stake and they would face ignominy in the society. Therefore, they deserve an order of anticipatory bail. It is also further submitted that, the petitioners being Government employees, there is no possibility of their absconding.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, seriously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that no doubt, these petitioners were not named in the complaint where the FIR registered on the basis of it, but there was a reference that the fraud was committed with the aid of the officials concerned, on which the police investigated and found that the petitioners have 3 issued forged certificates and thereby aided the illegal claimants for drawing insurance claim amount, even though the persons referred thereto are very much alive. The investigation in respect of the petitioners, is going on. The certificates issued by them have been collected, whose copies are there in the CD file.

Therefore, at this juncture, ordering the respondent/police to release the petitioners immediately after their arrest, would hamper the investigation.

6.On considering the nature of offence allegedly committed, though the names of the petitioners herein are not referred in the

FIR, the CD file discloses that during investigation, it was noticed that these petitioners have aided the illegal claimants in obtaining insurance claim fraudulently by issuing them false certificates. The petitioners, no doubt, are Government officials. But, considering the nature of offence and the magnitude of it, it being an offence against the society, this court is of the view, granting anticipatory bail to these petitioners at this stage of investigation, is not called for.

7.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of November, 2013.

SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI S.M.RAFEE, B.Sc., B.L.,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2013.

Crl.M.P.No.2064/2013.

Between:

1. Mota Satti Babu alias Gurajala (A-1).

2. Mota Nageswaramma (A-4).

3. Balasani Eeswaramma (A-6)....Petitioners.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Vedullapalli Police Station. (Crime No.48/2013).…Respondent.

This petition came up on this day for hearing before me, in the presence of interested persons on behalf of petitioners; learned Public Prosecutor for respondent; written arguments filed on behalf of petitioners and upon perusing the petition and material papers available on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. is by

A-1, A-4 and A-6 in Cr.No.48/2013, first registered under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and later after investigation, Sections 354 and 323 r/w 34 IPC were added. These petitioners who have been remanded to judicial custody on 8-11-2013, are seeking to release them on bail.

2.On behalf of petitioners, written arguments have been filed and the learned Public Prosecutor was heard. CD file submitted.

3.Perused the FIR, CD file, remand CD.

4.A complaint was lodged by one Mota Ammulu with

Vedullapalli police on 4-11-2013 alleging that, these petitioners and 4 others have attacked her with an axe on her head and caused bleeding injuries. A-1 used axe while assaulting her on head while the other accused beat her with sticks because of a dispute when the accused were digging sand in the quarry belonging to the complainant and the complainant questioned them. Later, when the complainant was examined in the hospital by the Investigation Officer, she has further stated that, she has not mentioned in the complaint whereas the accused also caught hold of her tuft, dragged her saree in a manner outraging her 2 modesty putting their hands on her private parts like chest and buttocks. Thereafter, the police added Section 354 IPC.

5.In the written arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners mentioned that between the accused and the complainant, quarrels were going on with regard to a sand quarry as to whom the place from which the sand was being queried and complaints were given against each other by them. The incident mentioned in the FIR is one such quarrel, where the complainant had only stated in the complaint that she was only assaulted, but later, to cause difficulties to the petitioners and so that they do not get bail, a statement was given adding false allegations against the petitioners/accused that in the process of attack, they have outraged her modesty. It itself shows that they have been falsely implicated. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 8-11-2013, whereas the other accused have been released on bail.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposing grant of bail, submitted that no doubt, there was adding of Section 354 IPC during investigation, though the FIR was initially registered under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and that, it is a fact that the other accused are already on bail, the investigation is almost completed, therefore it is left to the discretion of the court.

7.On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners made through written arguments and the learned

Public Prosecutor, and on perusing the CD file and taking into consideration the FIR that was initially registered was under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC on the very statement of the complainant given in writing and Section 354 IPC was later added on her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 8-11-2013 and the other accused have been released on bail, this is a fit case to grant bail to these petitioners also.

8.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla.

3

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of November, 2013.

SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR. Copy to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI B.GIRIJA MANOHAR, B.Sc., B.L.,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE.

Monday, the 18th day of November, 2013.

Crl.M.P.No.1960/2013 in Cr.No.140/2013 of Ponnur Rural P.S.

Between:

Are Varun Kumar, son of Giriprasad, aged 29 years, Markapuram village, Prakasam District, now at Puttur village, Chittoor District.

...Petitioner/A-1.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Ponnur Rural Police Station. …Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on this day for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri I.Madhubabu, advocate for petitioner; learned Public Prosecutor for respondent and upon perusing petition and material papers on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to petitioner/A-1 in Cr.No.140/2013 of Ponnur Rural P.S. for offence under Section 304-B r/w 34 IPC.

2.This is second renewal bail application. Petitioner is A-1. This court dismissed earlier bail application vide common order in Crl.M.P.Nos.1825/13 and 1842/13, dated 22-10-2013. Deceased was one Sushmitha who is none other than wife of A-1/petitoner.

Their marriage was performed on 27-5-2009 and said to have presented cash of

Rs.1,30,000-00 apart from household articles, gold, cash, etc. Out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with a daughter. While so, on 1-9-2013, deceased expressed her inability to live with petitioner due to harassment and on 7-9-2013, she committed suicide by hanging with saree due to harassment. All other case facts are in detail discussed in the earlier bail application. Now, it is submitted on behalf of prosecution that entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is going to be filed. In view of changed circumstance, this court is inclined to grant bail.

3.IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed. Petitioner/A-1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing bond for Rs.20,000-00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum each to the satisfaction of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 18th day of November, 2013.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE

2

GUNTUR. Copy to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI B.GIRIJA MANOHAR, B.Sc., B.L.,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE.

Monday, the 18th day of November, 2013.

Crl.M.P.No.2032/2013 in Cr.No.76/2013 of Adavuladeevi P.S.

Between:

Vuda Prabhudas, son of Koteswararao, aged 20 years, Gowda, Pudiwada village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District.

...Petitioner/Accused.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Adavuladeevi Police Station. …Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on this day for hearing before me, in the presence of Smt.K.Kamaladevi, advocate for petitioner; learned Public Prosecutor for respondent and upon perusing petition and material papers on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to petitioner/accused in Cr.No.76/2013 of Adavuladeevi P.S. for offence under Section 366-A

IPC.

2.Petitioner is sole accused. Case of the prosecution is that, petitioner used to come to his relatives house at Adavuladeevi village of Nizampatnam Mandal and developed acquaintance with victim girl. He was informing that he will marry her, made her believe and asked her to come to Adavuladeevi, believing his words, she went to her grandfather’s house at Adavuladeevi and from there, petitioner took her to Goddess Kanakadurga

Temple, Vijayawada where he promised that he will marry her, that he took her to some unknown place and when she questioned, he did not respond properly. Suspecting his bad intention, victim girl escaped from his clutches, etc.

3.Case record shows, 6 witnesses are examined. But, according to prosecution, some more witnesses are to be examined and age group certificate of victim is to be obtained. It shows, investigation is pending. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

4.IN THE RESULT, petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 18th day of November, 2013.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI B.GIRIJA MANOHAR, B.Sc., B.L.,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE.

Monday, the 18th day of November, 2013.

Crl.M.P.No.2019/2013 in Cr.No.190/2013 of Amaravathi P.S., Guntur.

Between:

Syed Saida, son of Ismail, aged 25 years, Gajulapalem, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

...Petitioner/Accused.

-And-

The State: Station House Officer, Amaravathi Police Station. …Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up on this day for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, advocate for petitioner; learned Public Prosecutor for respondent and upon perusing petition and material papers on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to petitioner/accused in Cr.No.190/2013 of Amaravathi P.S. for offences under Sections 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C.

2.This is second renewal bail application. Earlier petition was dismissed, as investigation was pending as on that date. It is the case of outraging modesty of victim girl and criminal intimidation. It is submitted on behalf of prosecution that entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is going to be filed. In view of changed circumstance, this court is inclined to grant bail.

3.IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum each to the satisfaction of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sattenapalli.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, this the 18th day of November, 2013.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC.SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR. Copy to the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli.