Disposed

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi Fakuruddin @ Shaik Simpathi Fakuruddin Fakruvalli @ Sa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021CRLP/1803/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It directed the police to expeditiously produce the petitioner before the Court on a police telephone warrant, fixing a period of two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the police to produce the petitioner before the Court on a police telephone warrant within two weeks.

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi… — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1803 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A.7 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.245 of 2020 of Railway Kodur Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 307, 353, 109, 120-B, read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 20 (i) (c) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (x) and Section 20 (d)(i)(a)(b)(2)(a)(b), Section 29 (2) (b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b) (i) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016 and Rule 3 of Red Sander and Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2020, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of red sanders logs, the Inspector of Police, along with his staff and Panchayatdars, reached near Kanagunta S.T. Colony, Railway Koduru Mandal and found ten persons carrying read sander logs into banana garden. On arrival and on seeing the police, they tried to escape, but the police party apprehended five persons, who are arrayed as A.1 to A.5 in the present crime, interrogated them and seized 13 red sanders logs weighing 354kgs. During interrogation, A.1 to A.5 confessed that they along with some other persons are doing illegal transport of red

¶6

LK, J CRLP.No.1803 of 2021

¶7

¶8

sanders logs. Basing on the said confession, the present crime is registered and the petitioner is arrayed as A.7.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.20 of 2021 of Nakkireddipalli Police Station and he was arrested in that crime and remanded to judicial custody.

¶13

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

¶14

LK, J CRLP.No.1803 of 2021

¶15

¶16

circumstances of the case, this court deems it appropriate to direct the police to take appropriate steps for production of the petitioner/A.7 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.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶18

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

¶19

Date: 20.03.2021

¶20

Ksn

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi Fakuruddin @ Shaik Simpathi Fakuruddin Fakruvalli @ Sa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahik Simpathi Prakruddin @ Shaik Cheeparthi Fakuruddin @ Shaik Simpathi Fakuruddin Fakruvalli @ Sa 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

Gulivindula Harish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dalari Yedukondalu, Vs Mis Shri Ram City Union Finance Vinukonda.

Pydi at Paidi Srikanth Vs Pydi at paidi Priyanka

Mathala Srinu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh