Disposed

Ayesha Fathima, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2006CRLP/910/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439(2) CrPC, the High Court directed the police to register a case under Section 154 CrPC within a week if the petitioner's alleged cognizable offense report was prima facie valid, cancelling anticipatory bail implications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to register a case within one week if allegations prima facie make out a cognizable offence.

Ayesha Fathima, Vs The State of A.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND SIX

¶3

: PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: K.C.BHANU

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 910 of 2006

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ayesha Fathima W/o Saleem Pasha

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶11

2. Mohd. Saleem Pasha S/o Chotemiya, Executive Director, A.P. State Minorities Finance Corportion, Nalgonda Branch Office, District Collectorate Compound, Nalgonda, A.P.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr. P.C. praying the High Court may be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent by this Hon’ble court in Crl.P. No. 5061 of 2005 dated: 16-11-2005 in Crime No. 174 of 2005 on the file of the Pahadishareef Police Station, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition filed thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.R.Sanku, Advocate for the petitioner and of Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, the Court made the following

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

“It seems the petitioner gave a report to the police with certain allegations. Therefore, appropriate action has to be taken by the police in accordance with law particularly, with reference to section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

Hence, the police are directed to Register the case if the allegations in the complaint of the petitioner dated: 06-01-2006 made out prima facie case of cognizable offence. Post after one week.”

¶18

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶19

// TRUE COPY //

¶20

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶21

¶22

1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar,

¶23

Hyderabad

¶24

2. The Station House Officer, Pahadishareef Police Station, Ranga Reddy District (BY SPL. MESSENGER)

¶25

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

¶26

*4. One CC to Sri S.R.Sanku, Advocate (OPUC).*

¶27

5. One Spare Copy.

¶28

HIGH COURT

¶29

¶30

DRAFTED ON 30-6-2006

¶31

KCBJ

¶32

DATE: 29-6-2006

¶33

NOTE: POST AFTER ONE WEEK

¶34

ORDER

¶35

CRL.P. NO. 910 OF 2006

¶36

DIRECTION

Ayesha Fathima, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayesha Fathima, v. The State of A.P.

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

Katikala Prem Kiran, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sumit Handlooms Vs Kandi vishwanathan and Sons

Jutta Rajeswararao, Vs The State of a.P., through S.H.O.

Sayed Naseer, Vs The State of A.P.

Parakala Murali, Vs The State of A.P.

Bijilee Kumara Swamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh