IN THE HGIH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8280 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Smt. Datla Ramaseetha …. Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1. The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another 2. Smt. Bhavani …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8280 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Smt. Datla Ramaseetha – accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.107 of 2009 of Palakoderu Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 498- A read with 34 IPC. 2. Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant, respondent No.2 herein. When a representation was made that there is likelihood of settlement between the parties and the petitioners are sincerely making efforts for settlement, interim stay of arrest was granted on 20-10-2009. Now, it is represented that there could not be any amicable settlement between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay of two years in giving the report to the Police and that the petitioner is a woman aged about 55 years and that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she harassed the de facto complainant to sell Acs.4-00 of land given by her parents. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been filed. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the petitioner who mainly harassed the victim and that NBW is pending against the petitioner. 5. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the petitioner and her son (A-1) harassed the de facto complaint demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and to sell Acs.4-00 of land given by her parents. It also appears that the petitioner is mainly responsible for harassing the de facto complainant in India and also in U.S. 6. In view of the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am of the view that she is not entitled for the anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of the petitioner to surrender before the Court concerned and seek regular bail. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J January 28, 2010. KTL