Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Vanka Srivalli @ Akhilandeswari & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3921 of 2022
Decided On : 09-06-2022
Pre-arrest Bail - Offences under Sections 498-a, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act - Court directs respondent-Police to follow procedure under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 498-a, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act. The prosecution alleged harassment and abuse of the de-facto complainant by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the criminal petition, directing the respondent-Police to follow the procedure under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case. The petitioners were directed to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues: Pre-arrest bail for offences under Sections 498-a, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle laid down in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case, which emphasized the need to follow the procedure under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C for offences punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.
Final Decision: The petitioners were directed to cooperate with the investigation, and the criminal petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. - This criminal petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') is filed seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.57 of 2022 of Women Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-a read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.11.2017, the marriage was took place between the de-facto complainant and a1 at Subham Kapu Function Hall, East Godavari District. after that she joined her inlaws house. The husband used to beat the de-facto complainant every day for some reasons or other. Her sister-in-law by name Vanka Srivalli was married. But they were still in Tanuku and all the accused together harassing the de-facto complainant. Hence, the crime was registered.
3. Heard Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused Nos.4 and 5 are sister and brother-in-law of accused No.1 and they are living elsewhere. He further submits that they were falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, they are entitled for pre-arrest bail.
5. The learned assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the aforesaid offences registered against the petitioners are all punishable with less than seven (07) years period of imprisonment and as such, the respondent-police are ready to follow the principle laid down in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 .
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Police to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273 case. The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation in the above said Crime.
7. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
The court applied the principle laid down in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case, emphasizing the need to follow the procedure under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C for offences punishable with less than seve....
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and guidelines in cases involving allegations of harassment for dowry and directed the police to do so.
The court's decision was influenced by the specific allegations made against the first petitioner/a1, the lack of specific allegations against the other petitioners/a-2 to a-4, and the direction for ....
The court emphasized the importance of following the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in cases involving offences punishable under IPC.
Maximum punishment prescribed for the offences being below seven years warrants police to follow procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C
An accused who has not been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is entitled to anticipatory bail, even if they were shown as absconding in the charge sheet.
Anticipatory bail can be granted in serious allegations, balancing the gravity of charges with the rights of the accused under specific conditions.
Pre-arrest bail can be granted if the court finds that the circumstances do not warrant the detention of the accused while ensuring cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
The absence of specific overt acts against the petitioner in the nature of allegations led to the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
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
