Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 502 (AP)

Kolanukonda Ramesh v. State Station House Officer

2020-08-05

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2. The petitioner is A1 in Crime No.254 of 2020 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District. 3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 326, 306 read with 34 IPC. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein is the husband of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide on 24.04.2019 night. Initially, a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered. Thereafter, as anti-mortem injuries were found on the dead body, the case was altered to Sections 326, 306 read with 34 IPC by the police. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner used to suspect the character of the deceased and there were disputes in between them in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging on the midnight on 24.04.2019. It is also not disputed before this Court by the petitioner that anti- mortem injuries were sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner being her husband has to explain as to how she sustained such anti-mortem injuries. When questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of committing suicide she might have fallen down and in the said process she might have sustained the said injuries. The said defence version has no prima facie basis at this stage and the same is also not probable and believable. As the deceased sustained anti-mortem injuries before committing suicide, it requires deep investigation to find out the truth of the matter. The investigation in this case is still pending. 7. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage as investigation is pending in this case. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.