Allowed

K.Subash, (A2) v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC1 Feb 2008CRLP/143/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for bail filed under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC. The High Court granted bail to two petitioners held in custody for over 90 days while the charge sheet remained absent, directing execution of personal bonds and appearance before the SHO.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail on personal bonds for Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, entitled to report to SHO on Sundays until commitment.

K.Subash, (A2) Vs The State of A.P. — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

: PRESENT :

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI.JUSTICE : C.Y. SOMAYAJULU

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.143 OF 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

1.K. Subash, S/o Baburao (A-2)

¶8

2.K. Ramakrishna, S/o Baburao (A-3) .. Petitioners/A.2 & 3

¶9

And

¶10

State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent

¶11

Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Crl.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners 1 and 2 herein on bail, pending investigation and trial in Cr.No.261/07 of Shah Inayat Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice.

¶12

The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent.

¶13

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :

¶14

1. Since charge sheet is not filed, and as the petitioners are in custody for more that 90 days, they are entitled to bail.

¶15

2. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their executing personal bonds for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad subject to the condition that they should report their presence before the S.H.O. Shah Inayath Gunj Police Station on every Sunday between 10-00 a.m. and 11-00 a.m. till the case is committed to the Sessions Court.”

¶16

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶17

// TRUE COPY //

¶18

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶19

To 1.The I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3.The Station House Officer, Shah Inayath Gunj Police Station, Hyderabad. 4.Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶20

5.One spare copy. 6.One CC to Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate. (OPUC)

¶21

H.A.

¶22

DRAFTED BY : H.A DATED :01.02.08 APPROVED BY :

¶23

HIGH COURT

¶24

CYSJ

¶25

DATED: 01-02-2008

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

CRL.P NO.143/08

¶28

DIRECTION

K.Subash, (A2) v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subash, (A2) 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

Chitikella Laxmaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

The Ex- Servicemens Association, Regd. No.228/76 Vs The Commissioner

Gandipomu Shyam Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakshmi Devi Complex, Vs a.P.State Financial Corporation

Ginne Saraswathi Vs The District Collector

M/S Bridge and Roof Company Calcutta Vs Inspector of Fatories Krishna and 3