Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 387 (AP)

Malapati Varun Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2013-06-04

K.G.SHANKAR

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is A1. He seeks for grant of bail. He allegedly committed the offences under Sections 328, 420 and 376 read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 and A3 are the parents of the petitioner and they were already enlarged on bail. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 as well as the de facto complainant are foreign educated persons. Their marriage was fixed and the betrothal was performed on 14.2.2013. The understanding was that the marriage was to be solemnized on 12.5.2013. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and the de facto complainant went to various places like Mumbai, Chennai and Kanchi to make purchases for the marriage. The de facto complainant contended that A1/petitioner was always anxious to have carnal acquaintance with the de facto complainant before marriage and that the de facto complainant has resisted the same. It is her further case that on 5.3.2013, the petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant at Alamuru, East Godavari District and invited her to Rajahmundry, the petitioner took her to Visakhapatnam and kept her in Gateway Taj Hotel. Despite her protest, the petitioner offered her to have dinner in the room where they were staying. 4. After dinner was ordered, while the de facto complainant was in the toilet, the petitioner allegedly mixed vodka with coke and induced her to consume the same. The de facto complainant felt giddy and while she was in semi-conscious stage, the petitioner resorted to carnal acquaintance with her. Even thereafter, the petitioner and the de facto complainant visited Chennai and Kanchi. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry the de facto complainant, whereupon a complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2013 basing on the complaint of the de facto complainant. 5. The learned Counsel representing the de facto complainant who was accorded permission by the Court to contest the case, submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is unholy reprehensible and most unfair. He submitted that the petitioner cancelled the marriage with the de facto complainant on the ground that the de facto complainant is not a soft-spoken lady. The petitioner and the de facto complainant were going to various places to make purchases. He submitted that the petitioner cancelled the marriage with the de facto complainant on the ground that the de facto complainant is not a soft-spoken lady. The petitioner and the de facto complainant were going to various places to make purchases. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant that the petitioner never raised the question regarding the attitude of the de facto complainant, but only after receiving Rs.15.00 lakhs from the parents of the de facto complainant and after having carnal acquaintance with her, he is trying to go back and that it would be tantamount to the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 376 of IPC. He further submitted that it is an appropriate case to continue the petitioner in incarceration till charge-sheet is laid so that he would learn a lesson. 6. I consider that the parameters for grant or refusing to grant bail are whether the petitioner would slip away in the event of the grant of bail and whether the petitioner would tamper with the evidence in the event he was enlarged on bail. 7. The petitioner is an Indian and it does not appear that he would slip away from India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant is a resident of Alamuru and the alleged incidents have occurred at various places other than Visakhapatnam, so much so the petitioner who is a resident of Vijayawada has no scope to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. 8. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. The medical report however is not before this Court to determine whether the de facto complainant suffered carnal acquaintance and if so, whether it was in the hands of the petitioner or otherwise. 9. Since 17 witnesses were already examined by the Investigating Agency, I consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, to restrain the petitioner from leaving India, I deem it appropriate to direct him to surrender his passport to the concerned Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. 9. Since 17 witnesses were already examined by the Investigating Agency, I consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, to restrain the petitioner from leaving India, I deem it appropriate to direct him to surrender his passport to the concerned Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru and on further condition that the petitioner shall deposit his passport in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru before his release. He shall not be entitled to take it back the same until the conclusion of the trial.