BATHINA RAMA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF A.P. THROUGH SHO, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is A-1, in Crime No. 694 of 2016 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, filed the present application under Sections 437 and 439 Crimial P.C. seeking bail in the above crime, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354(c), 384,420 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21-12-2016 at about 13.00 hours, the de facto complainant namely Meesala Jagadeeswari lodged a complaint with the aforesaid police station stating that her marriage with one Koteswara Rao, an Advocate was performed in the year 2007. The petitioner is doing Real Estate business. During the year 2014, when the de facto complainant was at her parents house, the petitioner came in to contact her father and at that time, he attributed deceitful allegations that her husband is a womanizer and by that inducement, committed rape on her on 12-4-2014 and took nude photos of her and threatened to show nude photos to her husband and her father. Putting her in fear, he continuously committed rape on her. Thus he committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the report, dated 21-12-2016 and the bank statements in proof of transfer of money from one account to another with regard real estate business between the petitioner and the complainant. He further contended that the alleged offence of rape is not prima facie established; that due to disputes with regard to real estate business between the petitioner and de facto complainant, the present case is allegedly foisted against the petitioner and prayed to grant bail. He also further contended that as the entire investigation is completed, the question of petitioner's interference in the event of enlarging him on bail, does not arise.