Dismissed

Maddi Rambabu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2021CRLP/130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition under Cr.P.C. Section 438 regarding alleged PDS rice smuggling. Finding the petitioner to be a habitual offender who was absconding and had multiple prior similar arrests, the court held there were no merits to the petition and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Maddi Rambabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.130 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This is a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) on behalf of the petitioner in Crime No.01 of 2021 of Lalapet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2016 at 09.00 a.m. on receipt of a reliable information about illegal transportation of PDS rice, the Investigating Officer went to the spot along with his staff and mediators and arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2. As the petitioner/A3 states that A1 to A3 purchased PDS rice from the poor people for less price and are selling the same to the innocent public for higher rates and earning money wrongfully by violating the Government Orders and seized 31 sacks of PDS rice bags in autos bearing Nos.AP07 TB 2915 and AP07 TE 7642f in the presence of mediators under a cover of mediatornama and prevented the accused to commit further offence.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the godown is leased by the accused No.4 who was taken into remand by the police. It is wrongly stated that the accused No.3 is also the owner of the godown. The petitioner/Accused No.3 is not the owner of the

¶8

¶9

godown nor the lease holder and has nothing to do with the present offence.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender and previously he was arrested in respect of three other crimes of similar nature.

¶11

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the petitioner/Accused No.3 is habitually continued his clandestine business and he is accused and arrested in Cr.No.324 of 2019, 554 of 2020 and 555 of 2020 of Lalapet Police Station. The investigation is not yet completed. The petitioner is absconding. Hence, this Court found that there are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

Date: 11.01.2021. KLPD

¶15

_____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶18

Criminal Petition.No.130 of 2021

¶19

Date: 11.01.2021

¶20

KLPD

Maddi Rambabu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddi Rambabu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

B Amaranatha Reddy Vs the State of Ap

P David Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Endala John David Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadagala Anand Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Sai Krishna Vs the State of Ap

G Venugopal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh