THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9104 of 2010 ORDER:- The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.297/2010 on the file of II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The prosecution case in brief is :- The petitioner completed Advanced Diploma in Software Engineering in the year 1997 in Madras. He married one Sarala in the year 1999. Subsequently, in the year 2004, he developed intimacy with cousin of his wife namely Asha. He shifted his residence to Hyderabad and lived in a rented room at Khairatabad. He brought Asha from her native village and kept her in his house. He continued his marital life with both Asha and Sarala. In the year 2004 he developed intimacy with LW.8 – Smt.Vattikala Revathi Rani and he also married her and lodged her in Narayana Hostel for some period. During the said period, Asha developed illicit relationship with others. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the said Asha over the illicit relationship of Asha with others. On 3-11-2007 the petitioner quarrelled with Asha and killed her by strangulation. He informed his wife Sarala about his killing Asha and thereafter, he escaped from the house. A report came to be presented by the owner of the house namely P.Chandra Mouli. Basing on the said report, the S.H.O., Saroornagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.1272/2007 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. After due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be presented before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.297/2010 and made-over the same to the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail by moving Crl.M.P.No.237/2010. The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the trial schedule has been fixed. Hence, this application by the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. A further submission has been made that the case is committed to the Sessions Division and therefore tampering of evidence by the petitioner does not arise. Learned Additional Public Prosecution appearing for the respondent-State opposed the application. As seen from the material on record, the crime is of the year 2007. The police arrested the accused on 7-5-2010. The case is scheduled for trial. The petitioner seems to have resorted to develop association with the innocent girls with a promise of marriage and marrying them thereafter. The victim is one such innocent girls. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 15th September, 2010 smr