Sarvasiddi Uma Maheswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel submits that earlier the defacto-complainant lodged a case against the petitioner, which is registered as Crime No.413 of 2015. After due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet. The Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 447 of I.P.C and Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST POA Act, against the petitioner.

The learned counsel filed a copy of the F.I.R, the written information which was submitted by defacto-complainant in the said case. The learned counsel would further submit that she again has lodged a 2nd case by adding the police officer also as an accused under the very same allegations. The petitioner challenging the same filed W.P No.8503 of 2017 which was closed, on the representation from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the final report is already filed. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is apprehending the threat of arrest relating to the 2nd case. The learned counsel would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner in the present case are already there in the earlier complainant. The learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and prays to allow the petition.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the charge-sheet is not filed in this case, the Court may pass appropriate orders.

As can be seen from the record, Crime No.413 of 2015 was registered based on the written information which was presented by the DEFACTO- complainant to the police. A fair look at the contents of such complaint would reveal that the petitioner suppressed his1st marriage and got married the defacto-complainant.

In that view, the complainant can recourse her remedy in the case, which is already pending i.e., C.C No.845 of 2018, to maintain the case against the petitioner under Section 495, the separate case need not be registered. The complaint in the present case can be a part of the earlier case i.e., C.C No.845 of 2018.

Considering the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on the following condition:-

The Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.