MALAPATI VARUN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A1. He seeks for grant of bail. He allegedly committed the offences under Sections 328, 420 and 376 read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A2 and A3 are the parents of the petitioner and they were already enlarged on bail. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 as well as the de facto complainant are foreign educated persons. Their marriage was fixed and the betrothal was performed on 14.2.2013. The understanding was that the marriage was to be solemnized on 12.5.2013.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and the de facto complainant went to various places like Mumbai, Chennai and Kanchi to make purchases for the marriage. The de facto complainant contended that A1/petitioner was always anxious to have carnal acquaintance with the de facto complainant before marriage and that the de facto complainant has resisted the same. It is her further case that on 5.3.2013, the petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant at Alamuru, East Godavari District and invited her to Rajahmundry to have dinner. She claimed that instead of taking her to Rajahmundry, the petitioner took her to Visakhapatnam and kept her in Gateway Taj Hotel. Despite her protest, the petitioner offered her to have dinner in the room where they were staying.

(3.) After dinner was ordered, while the de facto complainant was in the toilet, the petitioner allegedly mixed vodka with coke and induced her to consume the same. The de facto complainant felt giddy and while she was in semi-conscious stage, the petitioner resorted to carnal acquaintance with her. Even thereafter, the petitioner and the de facto complainant visited Chennai and Kanchi. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry the de facto complainant, whereupon a complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2013 basing on the complaint of the de facto complainant.