Smt.g.rajani

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

-cum-SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Smt.G.Rajani,,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 13th day of April,2022

Crl. MP.No.1038/2022

(Cr.No.309/2021 of Nakkapalli Police Station, Visakhapatnam )

Between: Matta Manikumar, S/o Ammiraju, aged 35 years, Private employee, House No.9-2-031, 5th Street, UKV Nagar, Yanam, Puducherry-5332 464 (living within Yanam PS Limits) previously resident of Near Upmaka Temple, OPP. Raithu Borosa Kendram, Nakkapalli (V), Visakapatnam

... Petitioner/Accused No.1

And: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on 08.04.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Ramakrishna, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.1and Smt. M. Shylaja, Public Prosecutor Gr-1 for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is the second bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is arrested and produced before the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchilli, Visakhapatnam District on 10.03.2022 and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 306 & 201 R/w 34 IPC in Crime No.309/2021 of Nakkapalli PS, Visakhapatnam.

3.The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/A.1 has looked after his wife and children with love and affection and there are no disputes in between him and his wife at any point of time and there is no single complaint given by the deceased wife of the petitioner/Accused No.1 to the police against him or his family members during the last ten years and she did not complain against the petitioner/accused or his family members to any of their relatives or the caste elders during the period of last ten years and further the petitioner/accused No.1 is not having any illicit relationship with anyone as alleged by the complainant and the family of the petitioner/accused No.1 is hailing from respectable family.

4.It is further contended that the wife of the petitioner/Accused no.1 is suffering from severe gastric pain and abdomen pain for the last one year and above. Prior to demise the petitioner/Accused No.1 and his family members used to take her to the local Government Hospital several times for treatment in Yanam and after shifting to Nakkapalli the wife of the petitioner/A.1 used to consume tables to her gastric pain basing on the prescription given at Yanam without going to the Hospital at Nakkapalli. The wife of the petitioner/A.1 instead of going to hospital she neglected to go to hospital at Nakkapalli. Due to unbearable paid his wife taken extreme step to end her life by committing suicide by hanging to fan herself with saree during night time and the petitioner/Accused No.1 fell shock on seeing his wife in hanging position and made phone call to his father/A.2 and A.2 informed the same to all the relatives of the deceased over phone immediately also informed to the complainant without any delay where the relatives including the complainant advised the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 to bring the dead body of the deceased wife of the petitioner/A.1 to Yanam as well as the relatives at Yanam. Accordingly in that situation instead of informed the death information to the Nakkapalli police at first he shifted the dead body to Yanam informing to Yanam Police where the Yanam police rushed to the house of A.2, as there is no whisper in transporting the dead body from Nakkapalli to Yanam as the only reason is that the neighbours did not come forward to help the accused and in the said situation as they afraid to come to the dead body and as such having no other go the petitioner/A.1 shifted the dead body to his native place at Yanam and as such there is no other intention in shifting the body from Nakkapalli to Yanam and he did not vanish the dead body as he being a responsible person informed the same to the Yanam Police and thus he is unaware that he has to inform at first to Nakkapalli Police. The complainant and the petitioner/A.2 are having previous grudges with regard to gathering of Christian believers and as such he bore grudge against the petitioner/A.2 along with A.1 and on the spot at the dead body the complainant demanded both the accused for huge amount within two hours where the relatives and accused stated that it is not the right time to make galata or dispute at the place of dead body and will discuss the matter after completing the last rites ceremony and will discuss it after 11 days and subsequently as the petitioner/A.1 and A2 refused to pay the amount and demanded by the complainant bore grudge against both the accused and keeping in view the previous dispute with the A.2 and with his political influence gave false statement and another complaint against A.2 in Yanam Police Station alleging that A.2 molested his 9 years minor grand daughter (daughter of A.1) under POCSO Act where the A2 was in the remand for more than three weks and thus the complaint filed two cases against the A.2 and one case against both the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 for wrongful gain from A.2 to get the house from them and make them shelterless. To prove the intention and cunningness/grade of the complainant in the FIR as there are no allegations that the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 are the reason for the death of wife of the petitioner/A.1 and he just asked the police to investigate the issue and to know the reason for the death of his wife. It is an after thought of the complainant when A.2 refused to convey his house in favour of the children of the deceased. Further the Yanam Police on the next day have seized the suicide note from the rented house where the wife of the A.1 committed suicide in the presence of the petitioner/A.1 and read over the contents and also shown to the petitioner/A.1 and in the suicide note the deceased/wife of A.1 wrote that due to unbearable gastric abdomen pain she decided to commit suicide/to end her life and no one are responsible to her death. That is why the Yanam police did not arrest the accused treating the accused are innocent and they are no way concerned with the alleged offence . The complainant hatched up a nefarious plan with his political influence and succeeded in foisting this false case against the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 and the witnesses alleged to have been examined by police are not examined by the police at any point of time and by conducting table investigation they foisted false case against them and the petitioner/A.1 is in doubt that the said suicide note is not yet produced before the Court by the Police. The learned Public Prosecutor in her argument before the Court while hearing the 1st bail application argued that as if the accused has committed the alleged offence against her wife without considering the facts and circumstances and without bringing the fact of suicide note to the Court and in hurried manner she argued not to grant bail. The detailed facts and circumstances were not mentioned in the 1st bail application and now the detailed facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court and thus this Court has dismissed the first bail application on 11.03.2022 in Crl.MP.No.968/2022.

5.It is further contended that the petitioner/accused is permanent resident of Yanam as per Aadhar card, where he is residing after demise of his wife and the investigation is almost completed and the postmortem report was also received by the police and as many as 10 witnesses were examined by the police and thus there is no question of tampering of evidence by the petitioner/accused No.1 in case of grant of bail and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, between Avinash Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar in 2014. It is further contended that the father of petitioner/A.1 was already enlarged on pre-arrest bail granted by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Petition No.7636/2021.

6.It is further contended that his mother expired long back and his father/A.2 is an old aged about 70 years and he is suffering from old age ailments and heart disease and the petitioner/A.1 is the only person to look after the care and welfare of his father, to provide medical aid twice in a week and thus his care and assistance is direly needed. The petitioner/A.1 undertakes to furnish solvent sureties and to abide by conditions as imposed by this court in the event of grant of bail.

7.Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and the Addl. PP.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Accused No.1 is innocent he is no way concerned with the alleged offence and he is innocent and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and the investigation is almost completed.

9.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently contested the bail petition and opposed for grant of bail. It is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the counter that in the above crime the petitioner/accused filed bail petition for his release but as seen from the case of the facts of the case the Yanam Police registered the case basing on the complaint given by Chavvakula John Prasad on 15.08.2021 on 16.08.2021 to 28.08.2021, Yanam Police investigated the case and for jurisdiction purpose transferred the case to Nakkapalli police as the death of the deceased wife of the petitioner/A.1 took place at Nakkapalli. About 8 months back from the date of death of the deceased the petitioner/accused kept his family in a rented house at Nakkapalli as he is working in Hetero Company at Nakkapalli. The petitioner/accused developed extra marital relation with one woman by name Indu who is working as teacher in private school, Visakhapatnam. For this the deceased questioned him to stop the relation with her for which the petitioner/accused No.1 quarreled with the deceased and whenever the deceased picked up argument with him, he abused her with utmost vulgar language and beat her indiscriminately and harassed her both mentally and physically and abetted her to commit suicide. On 14.08.2021 the deceased consumed harpic bathroom cleaner and when suffered with vomitings the petitioner/Accused No.1 did not even care her and not mind her health. Then she fed up and might have committed suicide by hanging in the hall after petitioner/A.1 and the children slept. On 15.08.2021 at about 5.00 am the daughter of the deceased Kalyana Bharathi saw the same and informed the petitioner/A.1 and then the petitioner/A.1 got down the dead body of the deceased and informed the same to the father of the petitioner/accused No.1 i.e., A.2 and shifted the body without informing the death of the deceased to anyone at Nakkapalli to Yanam. The investigation in this case is not yet completed and why the petitioner/Accused No.1 along with his father shifted the deceased’s dead body to Yanam by stating wrong information to the complainant and others that the death of the deceased due to gastric pain and all these need to be investigated by the IO and according to the situation at the house of the petitioner/accused on the date of incident the presence of the petitioner/accused is there and the inherent facts are known to him only which can be presumed that the burden of her death is on the petitioner/A.1 as per Section 106 IEA, whether the deceased death is murder or abetment to commit suicide and the petitioner/accused No.1 pretending to be innoncent only to mislead the Court and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10.The point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail?

11.Having gone through the material on record more particularly the contents of the FIR and also the statements of the witnesses as evident from the CD file admittedly the alleged offence is under Sections 306 and 201 R/w 34 IPC against the accused. As per the statement of the auto driver Mallipudi Durgarao, LW.7, he specifically stated that the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 have boarded the deceased Esteru Rani in his auto by putting a mask and covered her face with mask stating that she is suffering from some ill health of stomach pain and they are moving her to Yanam to hospital for treatment. But after going there he came to know that the person whom he brought as Ester Rani is the dead body of the deceased, which was brought by him without his knowledge and secretly, which was suppressed by the accused and as such he gave a statement to the police as to what happened.

12.The alleged offence, though initially registered under Section 174 CrPC as suspicious death later after the investigation the investigation officer has altered the charge from 174 CrPC to Sections 306 & 201 R/w 34 IPC, which clearly shows as per the statements of the witnesses and also more particularly the statement of the auto driver that the accused has tried to screen away the evidence by moving the dead body of the deceased from Nakkapalli to Yanam to his native place secretly, which causes suspicion. Further the information given to the complainant that the deceased died due to gastric pain and therefore she is shifted to Yanam also throws suspicion on the death of the deceased.

13.The allegations against the petitioner/A.1 are serious and specific, further the offence alleged against the petitioner/A.1 is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years, in which case the ruling as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 to comply the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar in 2014 cannot be applied to those type of serious cases as they relate to issuance of 41-A CrPC notice for the offences relating to less than or up to 7 years imprisonment. Further there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner/A.1 as seen from the statements of the witnesses and the FIR contents the death of the deceased is suspicious and his behaviour in moving the dead body without informing the police and also to neighbours from Nakkapalli to Yanam causes any any amount of suspicion. Further as submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor the petitioner/A.1 has some illegal intimacy with one teacher and on that there were quarrels between his wife and himself. The learned counsel for the petitioner has introduced a new fact of suicide note, which was not whispered in the earlier bail petition but the fact of the illegal intimacy of the petitioner/Accused No.1 with a teacher is suppressed. Hon’ble High Court was also not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in view of the serious and specific allegations. As submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the investigation in this case is still pending.

14.In view of the specific and serious allegations against the petitioner/A.1, even though A.2 is enlarged on bail on considering his age as 70 years, the petitioner/A.1 having moved the dead body of the deceased soon after her death without the knowledge of the neighbours and without informing to the police and moved to his native place itself throws suspicion with regard to the seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner/A.1 i.e., the offence under Sections 306 and 201 R/w 34 IPC. Further introduction of suicide newely in this petition also creates doubt. Further as submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor the investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, I feel that this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage in view of the nature of the allegations and also pendency of the investigation. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

15.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

-cum-SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Smt.G.Rajani,,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 6th day of April,2022

Crl. MP.No.1093/2022

(Cr.No.12/2022 of Makavaraplem Police Station, Visakhapatnam)

Between:

1.Dammu Nagendra, S/o Darakonda, aged 25 years, Settibalija, Coolie, Hindu, R/o J. P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Dammu Darakonda, S/o late Appanna, Hindu, aged 54 years, Settibalija, Coolie, Hindu, R/o J. P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Petitioners/Accused No.3 & 4

And: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on 06.04.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Appala Naidu, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused and Smt. M. Shylaja, Public Prosecutor Gr-1 for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is the bail petition filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 are arrested and produced before the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam on 10.02.2022 and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 306 R/w 34 IPC in Crime No.12/2022 of Makavarapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

3.It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the complainant filed complaint against the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 and other accused alleging that she is resident of Makavarapalem, Visakhapatnam District and she is blessed with two daughters and one son. Her younger daughter Polavarapu Durgadevi loved one Petitioner/A.1 of Janakirampuram Village and she eloped with him and living together at Janakirampuram village. They decided to perform their marriage on 21.05.2021 but they could not adjust the dowry amount of Rs.2,70,000/- including adapaduchu lanchanams by the time of marriage and hence the marriage was postponed. While so, the petitioner/A.1 suspected the fidelity of the complainant’s daughter and on 12.01.2022 at 9.00pm Dammu Govinda and his father Darakonda have beaten her daughter and informed the matter over phone, then the complainant persuaded her daughter. Subsequently the complainant received message on her phone No.8106507541 as “Akka sorry, I love you, Amma, Akka, Thammudu, I miss u” on seeing the message, they all got worried and morning at 7.00 am the complainant phoned to Nagendra and asked about Durgadevi, they replied that “Durgadevi is not here, she may come there”, later the villagers Cheepurupalli Nageswarao informed them that on 13.01.2022 morning at 7.00 am one girl jumped in Eleru Canal, then on suspicion, they have searched and on 14.01.2022 night at 8.00 pm found her daughter’s dead body in canal water at SC colony, Pydipala.

4.It is the further contention of the petitioners’ counsel that on the accusation on the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and 3 and 4 went to the police station on call by police and they disclosed their names and addresses. The petitioner/A.1 and 2 did not commit any office as alleged in the complaint and the they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case and the parents of the deceased had no interest to marry the deceased with the petitioner/A.1, due to which the deceased used to pick up quarrel with her parents and she jumped in Eleru Canal and she died. LW.1 to LW.10 are examined and all the material part of the investigation in this case is completed and they are permanent residents of Sriramapuram Village and Ravikamatama Mandal respectively. The petitioner/accused 1 and 2 are ready and willing to produce sufficient sureties, in the event of their release on bail.

5.The prosecution case is that on the complaint of Smt. Polavarapu Varalaxmi, W/o Govinda, R/o adlimpeta Village, Latchannapalem Panchayathi, MakavarapalemMandal,VisakhapatnamDistrict,againstthe petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 and other accused as alleged above, that she is resident of Makavarapalem, Visakhapatnam District and she is blessed with two daughters and son and her younger daughter Polavarapu Durgadesevi loved the petitioner/A.1. of Janakirampuram Village and she eloped with him and living together at Janakirampuram village, so they decided to perform their marriage on 21.05.2021 but they could not able to adjust dowry amount of Rs.2,70,000/- including adapaduchu lanchanams by the time of marriage and hence the marriage was postponed. While so, the petitioner/A.1 suspected the fidelity of the complainant’s daughter and on 12.01.2022 at 9.00pm Dammu Govinda and his father Darakonda have beaten her daughter and informed the matter over phone, then the complainant persuaded her daughter. Subsequently the complainant received message her phone No.8106507541 as “Akka sorry, I love you, Amma, Akka, Thammudu, I miss u” on seeing the message, they all got worried and morning at 7.00 am the complainant phoned to Nagendra and asked about Durgadevi, they replied that “Durgadevi is not here, she may come there”, later the villagers Cheepurupalli Nageswarao informed them that on 13.01.2022 morning at 7.00 am one girl jumped in Eleru Canal, then on suspicion, they have served and on 14.01.2022 night at 8.00 pm found her daughter’s dead body in canal water at SC colony, Pydipala. The SHO, Makavarapalem Police Station has registered the case is Cr.No.12/2022 under Section 174 CrPC (Suicidal death due to drowining in Eleru Canal) . Hence, this complaint.

6.Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the

Petitioner/Accused and the Addl. PP.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused that the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 are innocent and they did not commit any offence and they may be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions as may be imposed by this court, hence prayed for grant of interim bail.

8.On receipt of notice the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has filed counter contending that the alleged offence is under Section 306 R/w 34 IPC. It is further contended that the petitioners/accused No. 1 and 2 casually and normally they denied the all the paras. It is further contended that both the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are the main persons who harassed the deceased to commit suicide. As per the investigation of the IO, both the petitioners/accused beat the deceased severely and insisted her to bring dowry then only they would allow the marriage with the petitioner/A.1. Enlarging of the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 by this Court is on different reasons and that cannot be a ground for their enlargment on bail as these two petitioners/A.1 and A.2 directly created the situation to the deceased to commit suicide. It is further more contended that the Investigation in this case is not yet completed and all the official reports are yet to be received from the experts and only five witnesses are examined and if they are enlarged at this stage the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 will create hurdles to the investigation and also tamper the witnesses. Hence prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

9.The point for determination is: Whether the petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for grant of bail?

10.On perusal of the CD file and also on hearing both sides and the counter, it appears thatthe alleged offence is under Section 306 R/w 34 IPC. Even though it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the deceased is not interested to marry the petitioner/A.1, therefore, she used to pickup quarrels and jumped in Eluru canal and died and a false cases is foisted against the petitioners/Accused and since the investigation is completed in this case the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 may be enlarged on bail as per the conditions since already the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 are enlarged on bail by this Court in

Crl.MP.No.624/2022. But as seen from the contents of the acquisition levelled

against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 it is evident that the deceased fell in love with the petitioner/A.1 in the year 2018 and she eloped with him and they are living together in Janakiram Village and the marriage was decided to be performed but due to some dowry issues the marriage was postponed. However, it was alleged that the petitioner/A.1 is suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. There are specific allegations against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 that on 12.01.2022 night they abetted the deceased which was informed through phone to the complainant and she has also sent message saying sorry and upon that when they called the petitioner/A.1 and enquired about the deceased Durga Devi who has relied that she is not there and later it is found that she has jumped in Eluru Canal and died, which clearly shows the specific allegations against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 which abetted the commission of the suicide by the deceased while she was living with the petitioner/A.1 in their house. As per the prosecution only five witnesses are examined and the investigation in this case is still pending. Release A.3 and A.4 considering the age and their residence at difference places cannot be a ground to grant bail in this petition to the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 since there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 regarding their involvement. The investigation is still pending in this case and hence this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

-cum-SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Smt.G.Rajani,,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.1096/2022

(Cr.No.17/2022 of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Between: Duda Upendra Reddy, S/o Ram Gopal Reddy, Hindu, aged 21 years, Diploma in Polytechnic, Rly. Qt.No.68/A, Malakonda Area, Tatichetla Palem, Viskahaptnam –

530 004... Petitioner/Accused

And: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on 01.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and Smt. M. Shylaja, Public Prosecutor Gr-1 for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is shown as Accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in Crime No.17/2022 of Muvvalavanipalem PS, Visakhapatnam.

3.It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the complainant filed complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that he is resident of MVP Colony and he is residing at the above address along with his family. Two months before filing this complaint he gave his right side portion on the ground floor to the petitioner/accused and Patrula Suguna for rent as they said that they are married couple. The said Patrula Suguna is working in Arif Optics, RTC Complex. On 10.01.2022 at 14.30 hours at Sector-6, Near Venkateswara Swamy Temple, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam while the complainant is making repair of water tap the said Suguna’s husband/petitioner/accused came shouting to open the door when he asked him about details he said that Suguna is not lifting his calls from night and also not opening the door. When they both went to back side of the house and saw by opening the window door, Suguna was found dead by hanging herself to the ceiling fan hook with a saree.

4.It is further contended that on 10.01.2022 after he noticed the above incident, the petitioner/accused immediately informed his parents and immediately informed to Suguna’s Parents who are residents of Guntur District and on the complaint of Pusarla Suray Rao, house owner lodged a report. Immediately the police visited the scene of offence and broke open the door and after the formalities registered the above crime and subsequently the mother of Suguna on 11.01.2022 lodged report. The petitioner/accused is the only son to his parents and he has studied Diploma in Mechanical and the petitioner/accused has to look after his old age parents as they are middle class family and the petitioner/accused is in love with the deceased Suguna and the above portion was given to her as she introduced the petitioner/accused as her husband with a view to take the house on rent and the petitioner/accused has not yet married the deceased and both the parents have agreed for their marriage and taking advantage of the death of the Suguana their parents are demanding Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner/accused family. It is further contended that on 15th night the petitioner/accused consumed rat poison and on 16th morning when the parents of petitioner/accused found him semiconscious, they immediately shifted him to NRI Hospital and he was treated and kept in ICU for two days and discharged and the hospital authorities have registered the case as MLC UHID -18588 dated 16.01.2022. Sine the date of death of Suguna, he was mentally disturbed and the family members have been looking after him with care and observation to prevent any further untoward incident as the petitioner/accused is trying to commit suicide and reliably learnt that the police have altered the Section of Law in the FIR to 306 IPC at the instance of the deceased mother with an intention not to get bail and if the petitioner/accused is arrested by the police, he will face dire consequences in the hands of police at the instance of the complainant and the petitioner/accused may take any steps to end his life and the police are trying to obtain some signatures of the petitioner/accused on some blank papers to show the involvement of the petitioner/accused.

5.The petitioner/accused is permanent resident of Visakhapatnam and having fixed assets. The petitioner/accused undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court deems fit and proper in this case and he is readily and willing to produce sufficient sureties, in the event of his release on anticipatory bail.

6.The prosecution case is that on 10.01.2022 at 17.30 hours the complainant Pusarla Surya Rao, R/o MIG, Sector-6, MVP Colony, filed complaint alleging that he along with his family members are living in the above address and he is the owner of the house which is a three storied building, in the said house, himself living in the 1st floor, the petitioner/accused and Patrula Suguna approached him as wife and husband and requested to extend his house for rent in the ground floor, he gave it on rent @ Rs.6,000/- per month, Patrula Suguna used to work in Aarif Optician Shop. While so on 10.01.2022 at about 2.30 pm while he was supervising the tap repair at the ground floor, Upendra came there and shouting loudly to open the door, then he questioned the petitioner/accused as to what happened, then he replied that the Suguna is not answering his phone call from the last night, though he knocked the door in the morning she did not open, and the door locked from inside. On that the complainant and the petitioner/accused opened the side by window door and found Suguna hanging to the ceiling hook with a saree. Hence, this complaint.

7.Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Petitioner/accused and Addl. PP.

8.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused that the petitioner/Accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions as may be imposed by this court.

9.On receipt of notice the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has filed counter contending that the alleged offence is initially registered 174 CrPC and the accused has absconded as soon as the Section altered to 306 IPC. It is further contended that recording the statements of the witnesses and further investigation is pending. RFSL report is not yet received and the petitioner/accused absconded soon after the alteration of Section of Law from 174 CrPC to 306 IPC and if the petitioner/accused is granted anticipatory bail, he may tamper the forthcoming evidence and also may influence the witnesses, which would create hurdle for further investigation and hence opposed for grant of bail.

10.The point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail?

11.On perusal of the petition and also on hearing both sides even though the alleged offence was initially registered under Section 174 CrPC later the section of law is altered to one under Section 306 IPC. As per the counter filed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor the petitioner/accused has absconded soon after the alteration of Section of law from 174 CrPC to Section 306 IPC and the investigation in this case is pending and if the petitioner/accused is granted anticipatory bail he will influence or tamper the witnesses and the evidence. Therefore, in view of the fact that the investigation is still pending and the alleged offence is under Section 306 IPC and recording of the statement of the witnesses is also pending, granting of anticipatory bail at this stage will create hurdle for further investigation. I feel that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me on this the 13th day of April, 2022

Sd/-

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

-cum-SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Smt.G.Rajani,,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Monday, the 21st day of March, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.827/2022

(Cr.No.254/2020 of S.Rayavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)

Between: Kalapureddy Geddayya, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, aged 45 years, Vakapadu

Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal.... Petitioner/Accused

And: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on 11.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and Smt. M. Shylaja, Public Prosecutor Gr-1 for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is shown as Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427, 326 R/w 34 IPC in Crime No.254/2020 of S.Rayavaram PS, Visakhapatnam.

3.It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the complainant filed complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that on 07.04.2020 while the complainant is sleeping at his house, the family members of the petitioner/accused consisting of 7 members came to his house and attacked him and his family members and damaged the property and also broke the doors and assaulted him, as a result of which the complainant received bleeding injuries.

4.It is the further contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case and that there was prelude to this crime. The complainant in this case by name Gampa Naga Ganesh fell in love with Kalapureddi Rama Mahalaxmi who is none other than the daughter of Satyarao, who is the brother of the petitioner and that the complainant used to inform the villagers that he is in love with her and would marry her, but the complainant demanded dowry and property to marry her for which her parents refused due to poverty and the complainant asked the deceased to die, so that he can do another marriage and as such she committed suicide and a case in Cr.No.247/2020 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and the complainant was arrested and later chargesheet is also filed against him and the petitioner/accused is LW.5 in the said case and some other accused in this case were also witnesses in the said case. With a view to coerce them to come to compromise, the complainant with an ulterior motive, influenced the police and got this case foisted to harass them. It is further contended that the entire report is very vague and there are no specific overtacts attributed to any individual and the crime is registered nearly two years back and most of the material part of the investigation might have been completed by now and that A.1 to A.4 in this case were arrested and were later enlarged on bail and hence the petitioner/accused apprehends arrest in the hands of police. The petitioner/accused is having good reputation in the society. The petitioner/accused undertakes to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to produce sufficient sureties, in the event of his release on anticipatory bail.

5.After receipt of notice the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has contended that a case is registered in Crime No.254/2020 under Sections 448, 427, 326 R/w 34 IPC. It is further contended that on 07.04.2020 the present petitioner/accused with his six other family members armed with deadly weapons went to the complainant’s house and beat the complainant severely. 8 witnesses are examined in this case who are eye witnesses and all most all stated that the present petitioner/accused along with his family members trespassed into the house of the complainant and damaged the house and A.1 and A.2 beat the complainant and caused grevious injuries. Chargesheet is also filed by the Investigation Officer by showing that the petitioner/accused is absconding and further contended that petitioner/accused may take law into his hands and commit any further serious offence against the complainant as they are suspecting that their sister committed suicide because of thecomplainant. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Petitioner/accused and Addl. PP.

7.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused that the petitioner/Accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions as may be imposed by this court.

8.The point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail?

9.On perusal of the petition and the counter and also on hearing both sides the alleged offence is under under Sections 448, 427, 326 R/w 34 IPC. As submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the chargesheet is already filed in this case by showing the petitioner/accused as absconding. But in view of his absconding the prosecution apprehends that the petitioner/accused may take law into his hands and commit any further serious offence against the complainant as they are suspecting that their sister committed suicide because of the complaint and therefore, she prays to dismiss the bail petition.

10.As seen from the petition averments and the counter already chargesheet is filed in this case and A.1 to A.4 are already arrested and were enlarged on bail. Since the chargesheet is already filed, the petitioner/accused No.5 is no more required for investigation but however, I feel that he may be enlarged on bail conditionally. (directing him not to

contact or intervene with the complainant or his family members in

any manner and not to cause any threat or inducement to the

witnesses.) Therefore, I feel that the petitioner/Accused No.5 shall

surrender before the concerned police on or before 01.04.2022 and

upon such surrender, he shall be kept in judicial custody and shall be

enlarged on bail on 04.04.2022, as per the circulars of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

11.In the result, this petition is allowed conditionally. Petitioner/Accused No.5 is directed to surrender before the concerned SHO, S.Rayavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam on or before 01.04.2022 and

upon such surrender, he shall be kept in judicial custody and shall be

enlarged on bail on 04.04.2022, on furnishing personal bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for Rs.20,000/- each. The

petitioner/Accused No.5 is also directed not to contact the

complainant or his family members or induce in any manner and not to

cause any threat or inducement to the witnesses. But however, as per the notification of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020, the petitioner/accused who is if arrested and enlarged on bail shall be subjected to COVID-19 test / quarantine as prescribed by the World Health Organization and appear before the concerned Medical Officer and Help Desk in the premises of Collectorate Office, Visakhapatnam for quarantine. Failure to follow the conditions of quarantine will automatically cancel the bail. Enclosed copy of the notification issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, vide ROC No.192/SO/2020 dated 08.04.2020..

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me on this the 21st day of March, 2022

Sd/-

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam Copy:

1.The Collector/RDO, VSP;

2.The SHO, S.Rayavaram PS, VSP

3.Dist.& Medical Health Officer, VSP;

4.Sri.M. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner/accused No.5

‘IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

-cum-SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :- Smt.G.Rajani,,

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 22nd day of March, 2022

Crl.M.P.No.826/2022

(Cr.No.34/2022 of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City) Between: Vanumu Manikantha, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 23 years, R/o D.No.65-1- 421/A, Ajantha Colony, Near Coromandal Gate, Sriharipuram,

Visakhapatnam... Petitioner/Accused

And: The State represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent/ Complainant

This petition coming on 16.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Ramana Babu, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and Smt.

M.Shylaja, Public Prosecutor Gr-1 for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is the bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2.The averments of the petition are that the petitioner/Accused is arrested and produced before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam on 15.02.2022 and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 376, 506 R/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

3.It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the the complainant filed complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that her father is doing labour work and her mother is doing a conservancy work at Naval Dockyard and having one sister name Bhargavi and at present working as Data Entry Operator in Naval Dockyard and her sister is working in Eye Hospital at Gajuwaka. During the year 2017, when the complainant is studying Degree 2nd year in St. Anns College, on 11.02.2017 the petitioner/accused followed her in the name of love, but she refused, but the petitioner/accused continued to follow her and threatened her that will die if she does not accept his love, on that she made friendship with the petitioner/accused and after six months the complainant agreed his love and they made conversations through phone calls and chatting through mobile. After completion of her degree when the complainant was working in Real Estate Office, Sriharipuram, on 25.06.2018 evening at about 17.30 hours the petitioner/accused took her to his house at

Ajantha Colony, for introducing to his parents, but at that time the parents of the petitioner/accused were not present, on that, while she questioned him about the same, he had sexual intercourse with her without her will and further promised her that he will marry her and since then several times they had sexual intercourse at various places like appikonda, Yarada, Kailasagiri, in the name of love and marriage, while their love matter known to her parents, the family members of petitioner/accused family and elders came to her house on 20.12.2020 for marriage alliance and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and other lanchanams, when the complainants parents requested them that they have no capacity to meet their demands and when the complainant questioned the petitioner/accused about their demands, he replied that he stood by his parents decision. On that when the complainant stated that she will approach police about his acts, then the petitioner/accused took her to Vijayawada Durga Temple on 13.11.2021 and promised to marry her and after that when she asked about marriage, he again refused to marry her, on that the complainant approached police and lodged report against the petitioner/accused and his family members, then the police called the family members of the petitioner/accused, they fixed the marriage date as 10.02.2022 and in the meanwhile on 01.02.2022 the petitioner/accused informed the complainant through phone that their family is not willing to marry her and and he went out of District and his whereabouts are not known and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences and to kill her family, if she lodges any report against them.

4.It is the further contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case without his involvement and without proper investigation. The complainant and her family members with a view to threaten the petitioner/accused came up with a concocted story and filed this case without any iota of truth. The petitioner/accused studied ITI Welder Trade and doing daily wage works and he is having one sister married and residing at her in-laws house at Pedagantyada, he hails from respectable family and his father is working as driver privately. The petitioner/accused undertakes to produce sufficient sureties and also undertakes to attend the court regularly, in the event of his release on bail.

4.The prosecution case is that on 07.02.2022 at 15.00 hours the complainant Koneti Divya, D/o Koneti Madhava Rao, R/o Prakash Nagar, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam filed complaint against the petitioner/accused stating the above said facts of the complaint.

5.Heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the Petitioners/Accused and the Addl. PP.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused that the petitioner/Accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and he may be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions as may be imposed by this court.

7.On receipt of notice the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has filed counter contending that the alleged offence is under Sections 417, 376, 506 R/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner/accused contended that he is innocent and the police foisted false case against him, the investigation including statements of three witnesses and the victim revealed the accusation of the petitioner/accused committed towards the victim, which is recorded by the Investigation officer and there are some more witnesses to be examined. It is further contended that according to the Investigation Officer the petitioner/accused is having scant regard towards law and its enforcing agency and if he is enlarged on bail, it will be difficult for investigation and he may tamper the evidence and also may threaten the witnesses. The 164 CrPC statement of the victim girl and mother are yet to be recorded and RFSL reports are awaited. The potency report of the petitioner/accused is also yet to be received. Hence prayed for dismissal of bail, since the investigation is pending.

8.The point for determination is: Whether the petitioner/Accused is entitled for grant of bail?

9.On perusal of the CD file and the counter filed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and also on hearing both sides, the alleged offence is under Sections 417, 376, 506 R/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Only three witnesses are examined. RFSL report, potency report are yet to be received. Recording of 164 CrPC statements are pending. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner/accused and the investigation in this case is still pending. As the investigation in this case is still pending as submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, I feel that the is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me on this the 22nd day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam