Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Srungapati Suseel Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5610 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner/sole accused in a case involving charges under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court considered the consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, and imposed conditions to address the concerns raised by the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the prosecution's allegations of false promises, cheating, and rape.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the contentions of both parties and a judgment referred by the petitioner's counsel, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The court acknowledged the consensual nature of the relationship and imposed conditions to address the concerns raised by the prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved the consensual nature of the relationship, the potential impact of granting anticipatory bail on the investigation, and the petitioner's employment in the Army.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, as well as the petitioner's employment in the Army. The court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions to address the concerns raised by the prosecution.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Cr. No. 81 of 2022 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Vishakhapatnam registered for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused made false promises to defacto complainant that he loves her, intends to marry her and induced her into a physical relationship, which would amount to cheating and rape under Sections 417, 376 IPC. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, contended that the petitioner/Accused was falsely implicated in the present crime and reading of the entire complaint it appears that it is totally with the consent of a complainant and it is nothing but a consensus sex. Hence, Section 376 of IPC does not attract. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has already preferred a bail application vide bearing Crl.M.P. No. 2460 of 2022 which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the investigation is pending and the presence of the petitioner/accused is required and if the petitioner is released, it would affect the investigation. He further contended that only to harass the petitioner as he is working in Army, the present crime is registered and in the event of his arrest, he will lose his job. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case placed a judgment Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599.
On the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to para No. 4 in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599, which reads as follows:
'4. In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC'.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working in Army in Jammu and Kashmir, as such it may not be possible to appear before police station except for investigation purpose.
8. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is a consensual relation between the petitioner and defacto complainant and in view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/sole Accused, however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr. No. 81 of 2022 of the Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on the petitioner executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
(ii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to the investigating officer whe
The consensual nature of a relationship and the potential impact of granting anticipatory bail on the investigation were central to the court's decision.
The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or ....
Breach of promise of marriage does not attract the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is not a right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious allegations where custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the investigation.
The court has the discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Anticipatory bail is not granted when specific allegations exist against the accused, necessitating custodial interrogation.
Prima facie evidence of misrepresentation and dupe influencing the denial of anticipatory bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
