AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suresh Reddy, J
Accused No.1 in Crime No.284 of 2022 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail. The above crime was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 321, 323, 418, 494, 495 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act.
The brief facts of the case are that, the son of the de-facto complainant got married to one B.N.Nithya, resident of Tirupati. 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, Tirupati. 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 Accused No.1. Accordingly, the second marriage of the son of the de-facto complainant with Accused No.1 was performed on 09.05.2018. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant came to know that the marriage of Accused No.1 was already performed with one Pasupulati Satish Kumar on 01.03.2006, she was blessed with two (2) male children through him and thereafter, due to disputes, Accused No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, which was allowed by granting a decree of divorce on 20.11.2019. Suppressing the said factum, Accused No.1 married the son of the de-facto complainant. It is further alleged that the marriage of the son of the de-facto complainant was performed on 09.05.2018 and on the said date, the marriage of the petitioner was subsisting with Pasupulati Satish Kumar. Even before the grant of divorce, 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 the petitioner and others.
Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel, assisted Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the earlier application filed by petitioner/A.1 was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2023, while granting anticipatory bail to A.2 to A.5. He further contends that the petitioner is a lady, having two minor children and as such, he requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the application, contending that the earlier anticipatory bail application of petitioner/A.1 was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2023 and there are no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail petition till date.
Considering the facts and circumstances, as the petitioner is a lady, having two minor children, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within ten (10) days from today and move for regular bail. On such an application is being filed seeking regular bail, the Court below is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law on the same day.
With the above direction, the present criminal petition is disposed of.