Suresh Gandhi , Suresh Gunda, v. The State Of Telangana,
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6936 oF 2020 Between:
Suresh Gandhi @ Suresh Gunda, S/o' Late' Gunda Manaiah' aged about 46 iJrii o.i a"sii-ess,-ir%'.'z-r-isA,indir" Hills, Kukatpally, Medchal District.
...Petitioner/Accused No,2
AND The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor' High Court Judicature, at HYderabad.
... Res Po ndenUC om Pla in a nt PetitionunderSection438ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased tograntanticipatorybailtothePetitioner/AccusedNo.2intheeventofhisarrestin connectionwithCrimeNo.s6of2020ofPoliceStationJagadgirigutta,Cyberabad,in the interest of justice.
This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A Mujeeb' AdvocateforthePetitionerandthePublicProsecutoronbehalfoftheRespondent' The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAI. PETrrroN NO.6936 0F 2020 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C'), is filed by the petitioner/A-2, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.86 of 2O2O of P.Si Jagathgirigutta, Cyberabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 35B, 354C, 506, 498-A and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.
In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 25.02.2020 stating that her marriage was solemnized with one S.Bhargav on O 1.1 1.20 19 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.50,000/- cash and 14 tulas of gold as do'u'ry. After 20 days of marriage, her husband brought the petitioner lA-2 to the house and the petitioner/A- 2 , in the absence of her husband, tried to touch her and forced her to fulfill his wish. ( ) Her husband threatened her to kil1 if she discloses the matter ) to arry one. Her husband and the petitioner/A-2 took her naked photos and harassed her physically and mentally to get additional dowry from her parents. Hence, the complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offence and he is no way concerned with the alleged offence. The petitioner I A-2 is a 1aw-abiding citizen and is prepared to abide by any condition which this Court may deem fit to impose in case of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner I A-2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-2.
As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against the petitioner I A-2 with regard to molestation against th-c de fact complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-2. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
..*@*- ,,rRuEcoPY/, rssliiltrffi To, ilitilt'ff r,s,rfi "i::HTlHili{tr.ff 1'n:5't1's:'l'i:tr#::'
B'.'"%t ?i l?
tJlA M u1""b' Advocate toP u c j Two CD CoPies MMI
HIGH COURT GSDJ DATED:201O112021 '> ( TA oo I il ( JAN
ORDER
o +* CRLP.No.6936 of 2020 .*^ :.lr DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION C-a 5\V P I L4 3o\"t\-,