Crl MP No 08 of 2020 in Cr No 38 of 2020 of Musthabad

1 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR Present: Smt. PVP Lalitha Siva Jyothi, Judge, Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2020 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 08 of 2020 in Crime No. 38 of 2020 of Mustabad P.S. Between: Maddula Mahesh Reddy, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o. Nagampeta Village of Gambhiraopet mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District. ¼Petitioner/ Accused No.5 and The State through Station House Officer, Mustabad P.S. ¼Respondent/Complainant. Offences under Sections 354-D, 498-A, 506, 290, 323 & 337 r/w 109 of IPC and sec. 12 & 17 of POCSO Act. Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. This petition is coming before me on 16-04-2020 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Rajender, Advocate for the petitioner/accused No.5 and learned Addl. P.P for the State, having heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following: : O R D E R : This is a petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail. Notice given to learned Addl.P.P. Counter filed. Heard both sides. Perused the record. According to the prosecution, LW2 is the younger daughter of the complainant and A2 and A2 and A3 proposed the marriage of their younger daughter/LW2 with A1 and LW2 refused for the same and on that A1 to A3 harassed the complainant demanding her to convince LW2 for the marriage with A1 and due to that Lws1 and 2 left Avunoor village and stayed in Damannapet village and A1 to A5 went to Damannapet village, and bet her 2 and threatened her to convince LW2 for the marriage with A1 and on 10.03.2020, Lws1 and 2 returned to their house at Avunoor village and their house was locked and in the meanwhile A1, A2 came there in a car and on seeing, the complainant asked the keys of the house and on that they abused her in filthy language as to why they came there and bet the complainant with their hands and in the meanwhile A5 intentionally drove his car and dashed to the complainant and due to which she fell down and sustained injuries and there by he committed the offences punishable U/sec. 354-D, 498-A, 506, 290, 323 & 337 r/w 109 of IPC and sec. 12 & 17 of POCSO Act. The learned APP vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused No.5 and submits that if the accused is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility to threaten the family members of the complainant and victim and commit any offence to take revenge, he would manage the witnesses and threaten them and there is every possibility to indulge physical attack on the complainant and victim, and sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim has to be recorded by the Magistrate and he may threaten the complainant and her family members to threaten the victim or her family members to prevent recording the statement of the victim and he will cause hurdles for further progress of investigation. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.5 submits that entire investigation has been completed except filing of the charge sheet and the petitioner/Accused No.5 has a permanent place of abode and there is no chance for his jumping out bail and the prosecution has examined all the witnesses and he is ready to abide by any conditions as imposed by the court and prays to grant bail to him. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.5 was remanded to Judicial custody on 17.03.2020. The offences leveled against him are U/sec.354-D, 498-A, 506, 290, 323 & 337 r/w 109 of IPC and sec. 12 & 17 of POCSO Act. There are specific grave allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.5 and he is one of the prime accused person. This is the first bail application. The investigation in this case is not yet completed and the same is under progress. If at this stage, the petitioner/Accused No.5 is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering the witnesses, may hamper the investigation and may threaten the witnesses and victim and cause hurdles for further progress of investigation. Considering the nature of the offences and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the 3 interest of justice, I find that at this stage, the petitioner/Accused No.5 herein does not deserve to be granted bail. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2020. Sd/- Judge, Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. To 1) The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siricilla. 2) The Station House Officer, Mustabad P.S. 3) The System Officer, Computer Section Prl. District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar with a request to upload the copy of this Bail Order in Karimnagar District e-Courts Website..

Load more