Disposed

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021CRLP/1755/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of Criminal Petition No. 1755 of 2021 filed for anticipatory bail. Addressing allegations of false implication, the court directed the police to produce the petitioner before the Court on P.T. warrant expeditiously, preferably within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to produce petitioner on P.T. warrant within two weeks.

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, Vs The State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A-6 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.150 of 2020 of Sidhout Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 307, 353, 109, 120-B, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 20 (i) (c) (iii) (x) and Section 29 (4) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of Red Sandar and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that on 25.07.2020 on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of red sanders logs, the Inspector of Police, Sidhuout, along with his staff and Panchayatdars, went to Pulibomma Arch, Nithyapoojakona Road, Vanthatipalli village, Sidhout Mandal and found two persons standing there and on seeing the police, they tried to escape, but the police apprehended both the persons, who are arrayed as A.1 and A.2, interrogated them and seized 4 sanders logs weighing 89 Kgs. During interrogation, A.1 and A.2 confessed that they along with some other persons are doing illegal transport of red sanders logs. Basing on the said confession, the present crime is registered and the petitioner is arrayed as A.6.

¶5

¶6

Heard Sri S.Brahmananda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case basing on the confessional statement of co-accused. He submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and in a routine manner, the police are arraying the petitioner as accused in one case or the other. He further submits that even after his release in one crime, the police are making hectic efforts to implicate the petitioner in another crime even though there is no involvement of the petitioner and the police are not taking any steps to produce the petitioner on production of P.T. warrant. He submits that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.2 of 2021 of Atluri Police Station and he was arrested on 02.01.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the police are taking steps to produce the petitioner before the Court on P.T. warrant.

¶9

In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police are not taking any steps to produce the petitioner on P.T. warrant and they are arresting the petitioner in one case after the other.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and

¶11

¶12

circumstances of the case, this court deems it appropriate to direct the police to take appropriate steps for production of the petitioner/A.6 on P.T. warrant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶13

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶15

shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

¶17

Date :20.03.2021 KA

¶18

¶19