Criminal Petition Nos. 260, 261 and 262 of 2017. Case: Shaik Abdul Azeem and Ors. Vs The State of A.P. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Petition Nos. 260, 261 and 262 of 2017 |
| Judges | M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 438; Constitution of India - Article 21; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4, 6; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 437, 437(1), 438, 438(1), 438(2), 439, 498A |
| Judgement Date | January 23, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
-
These criminal petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioners on bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with unnumbered crime on the file of Women Police Station, Kadapa.
-
The facts in Crl.P. No. 261 of 2017 are dealt with, for better appreciation of the cases.
-
The present facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner allegedly lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC & Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But the police neither registered any crime nor issued any F.I.R against the petitioner. But, still, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the above crime.
-
During hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh submits that, as on today there is no complaint received either from the wife of the petitioner or anybody complaining against the petitioner. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner about his arrest in connection with the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is misconceived and prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.
-
The petitioner sought for pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But, this apprehension must be based on reasonable material and as on today, as per the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no crime was registered and no complaint was received, against the petitioner from anybody to attract the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
-
In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632, discussed on the scope of granting anticipatory bail and in Savitri Agarwal and ors v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 3173, the Supreme Court laid felt that wide discretionary power conferred by the Legislature on the higher echelons in the criminal justice delivery system cannot be put in the form of straight-jacket rules for universal application as the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. A circumstance which, in a given case, turns out to be conclusive, may or may not have any significance in another case. While cautioning against imposition of unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial