ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Poola Rama Krishna - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4357 of 2021
Decided On : 10-08-2021
Pre-Arrest Bail - Harassment for Dowry - Court directs police to follow procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the in-laws of the complainant harassed her for additional dowry after her marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 scrupulously.
Issues: Allegations of harassment for dowry, pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the severity of the alleged offences and the need to ensure that the police follow the prescribed procedure and guidelines in such cases.
Final Decision: The criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail was disposed of, and the police were directed to follow the prescribed procedure and guidelines.
JUDGMENT
Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre arrest bail by the petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.67 of 2021 of Narasaraopeta II-Town police station, Narasaraopeta, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of defacto complainant was performed with accused No.1 on 27.02.2020 in the presence of elders as per their caste customs. After marriage the petitioners/ A1 to A5, who are the in-laws of defacto complainant harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry. On the report given by the defacto complainant, the case was registered.
3. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been falsely implicated in the case.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that as per the allegations in the complaint, crime has been registered for the offences under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submits that since the punishment for the said offence is up to 7 years, police will follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the police are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 scrupulously. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.