Allowed

Bandaru Suryanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Apr 2010CRLRC/672/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two identical criminal revision petitions challenging the cancellation of bail and remand to custody were disposed of. The court set aside the impugned order cancelling bail and directed the release of both petitioners on bail under the original terms, while issuing a warning against influencing witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order cancelling bail; released petitioners on bail on original terms.

Bandaru Suryanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.671 AND 672 OF 2010

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶4

Both these Criminal Petitions are arising out of same order, as such, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶5

2. Criminal Revision Case No.671 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner A. Venkata Rao, against the order dated 01-04-2010 in Criminal M.P. No.164 of 2010 in Criminal M.P. No.56 & 57of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.

¶6

3. Criminal Revision Case No.672 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner B. Suryanarayana, against the order dated 01-04-2010 in Criminal M.P. No.164 of 2010 in Criminal M.P. No.56 & 57 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.

¶7

4. Heard.

¶8

5. The allegation against the petitioners is of trying to influence the witnesses and the bail granted to the petitioners on 10-02-2010 in Criminal M.P. Nos.56 & 57 of 2010 was cancelled through the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioners are remanded to judicial custody.

¶9

6. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶10

7. Now, it is reported that the matter is posted tomorrow for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant.

¶11

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they never approached anyone to influence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

9. Considering all the circumstances, the order dated 01-042010 in Criminal M.P. No.164 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners is set aside.

¶13

10. As the petitioners are remanded to judicial custody, they shall be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which they were initially released on bail.

¶14

11. It is further made clear that in case the petitioners try to approach or influence the witnesses, stringent action shall be taken against them.

¶15

12. With the above directions, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.

¶16

__________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J

¶17

April 23, 2010. KTL

Bandaru Suryanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Suryanarayana, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Pedda Chandrudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devunuri Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuruva Maddileti, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Khoop Chand Mewara Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tiyyagura Hanimireddy, Vs Tiyuyagura Gowthami

Srikanth , Viswakanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh