KONIDHANA ANANDA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused filed the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in P.R.C.No.30 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler (arising out of Cr.No.188 of 2014 of Piler PS) in which the petitioner allegedly committed offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA)Act, 1989.

(2.) The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Piler PS stating that his marriage was held on 19.06.2014 at TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Piler for which the petitioner, who is a purohit in Ramalayam, Piler arranged photography, cook and utensils for a sum of Rs.70,000/-; he paid Rs.40,000/- at the time of marriage and requested some time to pay the balance amount; thereafter, due to paucity of money, he could not pay the balance amount. While so, on 30.09.2014 at 7 PM, petitioner came to his house and took him to the welding shop opposite to the telephone office and demanded the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- and when he requested for some more time to repay the amount, petitioner grew wild and abused him in filthy language touching the name of his caste and also beat him with hands on his cheek and threatened him with dire consequences.

(3.) On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.188 of 2014 and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Madanapalle granted station bail to the petitioner on 28.10.2014 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.11.2015 while committing the case to the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati for trial observed that since the petitioner was on station bail, he was ordered to be continued on bail till conclusion of trial. The learned Special Sessions Judge by letter Dis.No.19 dated 02.01.2016 returned the entire case record for non-compliance of Section 209(a) Cr.P.C and observed that bail order of the petitioner was not on record. Thereupon, the committal Court called for the explanation of the investigating officer regarding the bail order. It appears, the SDPO Madanapalle, in his letter dated 13.04.2017 submitted that his predecessor SDPO Madanapalle, conducted the investigation and he served notice to accused under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C since the offences of the case were punishable below 7 years of imprisonment and he did not consider necessary to arrest the accused as the accused had not failed to comply with the terms of the notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and he cannot submit more than that and prayed the Court to pass orders.