Dismissed

K.Lakshmaiah v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2019CRLP/5023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking regular bail from the driving accused (A5-A7) in a gruesome murder case. The Court noted no changed circumstances since the earlier dismissal, citing the gravity of the offense, witness threat, and societal risk.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for regular bail was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

K.Lakshmaiah Vs State of Ap — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5023 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners/A5 to A7 supplicate for regular bail in Crime No.665 of 2017 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada (P.R.C.No.66 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada) which was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 302, 148 r/w.Sec.120-B r/w.Secs.149, 34 and Sec.109 of IPC.

¶4

2. It is a gruesome murder of one Kalidasu Subrahmanyam @ Vemuri Subrahmanyam @ Subbu on 06.12.2017 at Jayadurga Tea Stall, Vijayawada committed by A2 to A4. As per prosecution case, there were long drawn disputes between the groups of the deceased and accused and some murders took place on either side and both the groups were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against the other. In that process, all the accused conspired together to do away with the deceased and they made a reconnaissance of his movements, it is alleged, on 06.12.2017 in the morning when the deceased went to Jayadurga Tea Stall as usual, in execution of their diabolical pre plan, A2 to A4 went with knives and other arms on the motor bikes driven by A5 to A7 and at the scene of offence, A2 to A4 brutally hacked the deceased to death and fled away on the motor

¶5

¶6

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.5023 of 2019

¶7

vehicles along with A5 to A7. The fiendish hacking was such that the Post Mortem report shows the deceased suffered as many as 36 multiple injuries all over the body both cut injuries and fractures. The brunt of the some of the injuries was such that the left index finger, the right middle finger and left ear were separated from the body. Further, the chronicle cavity of the skull, nasal bone, right scapula and some of the ribs were fractured into multiple pieces. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A10.

¶8

Hence, the instant bail is moved by A5 to A7.

¶9

3. Heard learned counsel petitioners and learned Additional P.P representing respondent-state, and perused the record.

¶10

4. The bail is pleaded mainly on the submission that even if the prosecution case is believed, A5 to A7 have not directly participated in attacking the deceased and they only took away the A2 to A4 on the motor bikes; entire investigation is completed and charge sheet was filed long back and P.R.C is at the stage of committal and further the accused are in custody since 14.12.2017.

¶11

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail stating that it is a gruesome murder and due to the continuous disputes between both the parties, there is a threat to the witnesses on one hand and also to the accused on the other.

¶12

¶13

UDPR,J Crl.P.No.5023 of 2019

¶14

6. It should be noted that this Court in its common order dated 26.06.2018 in Crl.P.Nos.5628, 5632 & 6177 of 2018 having regard to the gravity of the offences and also considering the larger interest of the society and the risk and personal liberty of A4 to A9, dismissed the bail application. No remarked changed circumstances are brought

¶15

forth to consider the bail application.

¶16

7. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall

¶18

stand closed.

¶19

_______________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶20

16.09.2019. MS

K.Lakshmaiah v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lakshmaiah v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikkala Surya Venkateswara Rao Vs Vilavala Tulasirao

Popular Shoe Company Vs Manda Subbaalli Tayaru

Allam Mallikarjun Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Hari Babu Vs State of Ap

P.Satyavathi Vs State of Ap

Shaik Irfan Vs State of Ap