ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), to the petitioner/A.5 in Crime No.75 of 2023 of Chennakothapalli police station dated 28.02.2023 registered for the offence under Section 305 r/w 34 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the third daughter of the de-facto complainant who is 14 years studying 9th class and the parents of the deceased used to go for their work to feed their sheep and come back home. On 27.02.2023 when they were not at home at about 06.30 pm A1 to A4 came to their house and harassed the daughter of the de-facto complainant and at that time Y.Narasimhulu, Obulamma and Gangadhari came there and reprimanded them and therefore A1 to A4 left the place. The de-facto complainant further stated that when she has enquired with her daughter she informed that they were harassing her basing on a telephonic conversation between her daughter and A1 and that on 28.02.2023 when she returned home, herself and her husband found her daughter hanging dead.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially when a complaint was given the name of the petitioner is not stated but his name has been subsequently included without reference to the surname and father’s name. She further stated that even a short delay in lodging FIR is considered fatal to the prosecution case whereas adding name of the petitioner subsequently after long time is very much fatal to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a law student and was never involved in any such type of offence. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that FIR was lodged not by the eye witness who were present at the time when the accused came to the house and therefore omission of name of the petitioner is not fatal and he further submitted that the eye witness who were mentioned in the FIR gave their statements immediately on the next day i.e. 01.03.2023 and they revealed the name of the petitioner as well and therefore it is not a fatal element in the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner being a law student knows how to defend him and he would not have attempted to commit the suicide if he has no involvement in the offence and another case is registered as he attempted to commit suicide.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suicide attempt of the petitioner would reveal the sensitiveness of the petitioner and his innocence.

7. Perused of the record.

8. As per the evidence on record so far collected in the investigation, there is prima facie accusation against the petitioner and his involvement in the commission of offence. The points raised by the petitioner have been aptly answered by the respondent. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence it is not a case fit for granting anticipatory bail.

9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 17-03-2023 PSA THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Criminal Petition No.1930 of 2023 Date : 17-03-2023 PSA