Dismissed

Bashu Shyam Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Jan 2012CRLP/560/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for bail dismissed. The court held that despite a request to be equated with another admitted accused, the petitioner did not deserve bail given the mode of attack and nature of evidence in a murder conspiracy case involving hired killers.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to renew bail request after committal court registers the case; criminal petition dismissed.

Bashu Shyam Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRL.P.No.560 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The petitioner herein is A10 in Cr.No.115 of 2011 of I Town Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.

¶5

The accusation made against the petitioner is that he along with other accused laid a conspiracy to eliminate Vellampalli Gopala Krishna Murthy @ Gopi due to monetary disputes and in pursuance of the conspiracy, the said Gopala Krishna Murthy came to be attacked on 28-5-2011 between

¶6

12-00 and 12-30 noon at his business premises. The said Gopala Krishna Murthy succumbed to injuries at his business premises.

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands in the same footing as that of A4, who has been admitted to bail, by this Court as per order dated

¶9

23-8-2011 passed in Crl.P.No.7096 of 2011 and therefore, the petitioner deserves for grant of bail.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the incident occurred in the broad day light and it created terror in Ongole town and the deceased came to be attacked by the hired assassins, who have been arrayed as A9 to A11 and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of bail. I have gone through the remand report dated 18-62011. It is stated in the remand report that the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as A10, along with A9 and A11 attacked the deceased with butcher knives and the knife used by A10 got stuck in the back of the deceased.

¶11

Such is the accusation leveled against the petitioner, he does not deserve for grant of bail. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his request as soon as the case is registered by the committal Court as PRC. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶12

____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶13

rkk Dated: 23-1-2012

Bashu Shyam Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashu Shyam Prasad, 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

Annapureddy Syam Sunder Reddy Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Sho.,Nunna P.S.

Sharabu Sandhya Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Tella Kavitha Vs The State of A.P.

Lokaiah Patel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chukkapalli Amar Kumar, Vs Meka Radhika

Sri Gugulothu Sunder Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits