ORDER:

Accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.284 of 2022 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, filed the present application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The above Crime was registered under Sections 321, 323, 418, 494, 495 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the son of the de- facto complainant got married to one B.N.Nithya, resident of Tirupathi. Later they obtained divorce by order dated 29.03.2018, in H.M.O.P.No.13 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi. The son of the de-facto complainant was having two (02) children through his first wife. Later the de-facto complainant decided to perform another marriage to his son. He brought a marriage proposal to his son with the Accused No.1. Accordingly, the second marriage of the son of the de-facto complainant with the Accused No.1 was performed on 09.05.2018. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant came to know that the marriage of the Accused No.1 was already performed with one Pasupulati Satish Kumar, on 01.03.2006, and she was blessed with two (02) male children through him, and thereafter, due to disputes, the Accused No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, which was allowed by granting a decree of divorce on 20.11.2019. Suppressing the said factum, the Accused No.1 married the son of the de-facto complainant. It is further alleged that the, marriage of the de-facto complainant was performed on 09.05.2018 and on the said date the marriage of the 1st petitioner was subsisting with Pasupulati Satish Kumar. Even before the grant of divorce, the Accused No.1 married the son of the de-facto complainant. On the basis of the said allegations, the present Crime has been registered against all the Five (05) accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, all the offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven (07) years or less than seven (07) years, except the offence under Section 495 of IPC. Further, the factum of the first marriage of the petitioner No.1 was known to the de-facto complainant. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that, the first marriage of the Accused No.1 was dissolved on 20.11.2019, vide H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018. Even before the first marriage was dissolved, the Accused No.1 married the son of the de- facto complainant, which is a matter of record. As such, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. This Court perused the material on record.

7. It is admitted fact that, even before the first marriage was dissolved, the Accused No.1 married the son of the de- facto complainant. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1. However, so far as the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, except stating that they are related to the Accused No.1, no allegation has been made against them. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5.

8. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are directed to surrender before Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, within a period of Ten (10) days from today. On such surrender, the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, shall release the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on bail, on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each, to his satisfaction. After release, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are directed to co- operate with the investigation and also directed not to tamper with the witnesses.

9. Accordingly, the present criminal petition is partly allowed.

___________________________ SRI K.SURESH REDDY