Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 830 (AP)

K. Sudheer v. State of A. P.

2008-09-25

P.SWAROOP REDDY

body2008
ORDER This Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner-sole accused seeking to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 163 of 2008 on the file of Orvakal Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is of having sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant by deceitful means etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of our High Court in L.H.V. Prasad v. Station House Officer' and contends that Chapter XVII deals with offences against property; Section 415 of IPC in Chapter XVII, as such, as a woman is not property no offence under Section 417 IPC is constituted. 4. In this case, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner induced a minor girl for sex with him promising to marry her. When the marriage of the girl was fixed with another person; when the marriage was in progress on 29-4-2008, the petitioner went there and forced the complainant saying that he would marry her believing the petitioner, the complainant discontinued the marriage process with the other boy and thereafter the petitioner disappeared. Thus, the petitioner not only committed offence that might attract the provisions of Section 417 IPC; but an offence under Section 376 IPC might also be constituted, apart from other offence, as the petitioner got the marriage of the victim stopped, while it was in progress. When the allegations are of above nature, by interpreting Section 415 I PC and relying on some precedents, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. It s possible that in certain cases, ultimately, if technical interpretation is made, the accused may not be liable for conviction; out, that might require some facts which would base on evidence ultimately; and, in such cases, where serious acts are committed by the accused, it is not at all desirable to give hair-split interpretation of law and release the accused on anticipatory bail by holding that no offence might be constituted. At the stage of bail/anticipatory bail some extent of rigid ness is required in interpreting the statute-whether the offence is exactly constituted or not; otherwise there is likelihood of the people, who commit serious offence got-out scot-free without being arrested, which would definitely encourage crimes; particularly the offences of the nature committed by such offenders. At the stage of bail/anticipatory bail some extent of rigid ness is required in interpreting the statute-whether the offence is exactly constituted or not; otherwise there is likelihood of the people, who commit serious offence got-out scot-free without being arrested, which would definitely encourage crimes; particularly the offences of the nature committed by such offenders. Hence, while granting bail or anticipatory bail in such cases, proper caution has to be exercised and the offenders shall not be released by interpreting that no offence might be ultimately constituted. This kind of exigencies arise in cases of offences under Sections 306 IPC, as well, where similar caution has to be exercised while granting bail or anticipatory bail in such cases. Thus, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 6. The petition dismissed.