IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY, WO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.P. No. 5525 OF 2014 Between:
1. Paradesi Ajay Kumar S/o P. Chandra Sekhar
2. P. Magaret W/o P. Chandra Sekha
3. P. Chandra Sekhar S/o Paradesi Ananiah
4. P. Archana D/o P. Chandra Sekha Petitioners/A.1 to A.4 (in Cr No. 45 of 2014 on the file of Saroornagar Women P.S., Cyberabad.) AND The S.H.O., Saroornagar Women P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad District, and the State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Respondent/Complainant COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : The Additional Public Prosecutor Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4 on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Saroornagar Women P.S., Cyberabad in Crimed No. 45 of 2014.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER “This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in Crime No.45 of 2014 of Women Police Station, Cyberabad District, apprehending their arrest in connection with the above crime as they alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The specific case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and de facto complainant was performed and they lived happily for some time and the de facto complaint is conceived. However, after recuperating from post delivery complications she requested A-1 to A-3 to take her to matrimonial house at Kurnool. But they refused stating that unless the de facto complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry they will not accept her as member of the family but the illegal demand of the petitioners could not be met as the parents of the de facto complainant belongs to middle class family. Basing on the complaint running in five pages, the police registered the above crime against the petitioners herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that there were disputes between the two family and a criminal case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 506 IPC is pending, which is numbered as C.C.No.1589 of 2013. In such case, the question of harassing the de facto complainant by the petitioners demanding the additional dowry does not arise thus he prayed to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation is at feotus stage and in the event of enlarging bail there is every possibility to interfere with further investigation.
(Contd.
2. ) . 2 .
5. As seen from the specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners at page No.5 of the complaint annexed to the F.I.R., the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 demanded for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry and such illegal demand could not be complied due to financial problems of the family of the de facto complaint parents. Demanding such huge amount as dowry directly amounts to an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC since refusing to take her as member of the family unless the above amount is paid is nothing but a mental harassment. Therefore, I find prima facie material against A-1 to A-3. However, no prima facie material is found against A-4, who is residing at Banglore. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner/A-4 on bail in the event of her arrest and declining to grant bail to the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A.3.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed in part directing the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Cyberabad District to release the 4th petitioner/A-4 on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with above crime on her executing personal bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House officer, while declining to grant pre-arrest bail to A-1 to A-3.”
//TRUE COPY// To ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
2. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, LB. Nagar, Cyberabad.
3. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Women Police Station, Cyberabad.
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare copy BV HIGH COURT MSM.J DATED: 15-05-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.5525 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED DRAFTED: BY BV DATED : 16-05-2014 HIGH COURT MSM.J DATED: 15-05-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.5525 OF 2014 BAIL GRANTED