Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 650 (AP)

Rangam Ramanjaneyulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-13

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.215 of 2020 of Kavali I Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The offences registered against him are under Sections 420, 495 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."). 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is a widow and thereafter she was taking coaching in a coaching center to appear for the competitive examinations. At that time, the petitioner developed acquaintance with her. He falsely represented before her that he is an un-married man, suppressing the fact that he is married and that he got a wife and thereby induced her to marry her. Accordingly, he married the de facto complainant in a temple suppressing his previous marriage. Subsequent to the marriage, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner is a married man and that he married her in a deceptive manner by concealing the factum of his previous marriage. Therefore, he has committed the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 420 and 495 of I.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations ascribed against the petitioner, as it is a case where the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the factum of his previous marriage and the fact that he got a wife and deliberately made a false representation before the de facto complainant that he is un-married and thereby induced her to marry him and accordingly, he married her by concealing the factum of his previous marriage, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.