This Criminal Petition sought anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused apprehending arrest under Sections 353 and 506 IPC did not deserve bail despite claims regarding the complainant's jurisdiction.
The Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1469 of 2012
Date:13th February, 2012
Between: Ravulapalli Govindu S/o.Yerra Kotaiah
..... Petitioner/Accused
AND
State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
.....Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1469 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner herein apprehends arrest in Crime No.67 of 2011 of Ballikurava Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences under Sections 353 and 506 IPC.
2. The accusation made against the petitioner is that he prevented the de facto complainant, who is the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, from executing the work entrusted to him by the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, on 12.12.2011 and abused him in filthy language. It is also stated in the report presented by the de facto complainant that the petitioner caught hold of his shirt and prevented him from executing the work.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant has no authority to enter into the land owned by the petitioner and no proceedings have been placed on record by the de facto complainant to justify his action of entering into the land in dispute.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application.
6. As could be seen from the report presented by the de facto complainant on 15.12.2011, the petitioner obstructed the de facto complainant from discharging the duties entrusted to him by the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner also caught hold of the neck of the de facto complainant and the same has been witnessed by one Srinivas. Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:13th February, 2012.
cs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1469 of 2012
Date:13th February, 2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Sections 353 and 506 IPC.
Ravulapalli Govindu
State of A.P.
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
