Dismissed

Avula Venkata Ramana , Ramana v. State rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC3 Oct 2012CRLP/7139/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused bail to accused A5 alleged to be a conspirator in the murder of Suryanarayana Reddy. The court found the defence version a matter for trial and held no reason to grant bail given the serious nature of the charges and flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition against bail is dismissed; petitioner remanded to custody awaiting trial.

Avula Venkata Ramana , Ramana Vs State rep… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7139 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The petitioner/A5 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 201, 212, 120-B, 302/34 IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. This case pertains to the murder of one Maddelacheruvu Suryanarayana Reddy @ Suri, who was a notorious criminal and who was involved in several faction cases and other cases. It is alleged that the murder of Suri was committed in pursuance of conspiracy of A1 to A5. It is alleged that A1 committed the murder while he was travelling in the same car along with the deceased, since he happened to be a close associate and follower of the deceased. A1 is stated to have prepared plan to involve A3 to A5 in the offence for the purpose of assisting A1 in the escape after

¶5

the commission of the planned murder. It is alleged that while A1 and the deceased were travelling in one car, A3 to A5 were following their car at some distance on two motorcycles and that A1 was continuously contacting A3 to A5 on cell phone through out the route of the deceased proceeding towards the advocate’s house at Kukatpally and back till they reached the scene of offence at Yousufguda. It is alleged that after commission of murder, A1 got down from the car and slipped away on one motorcycle signalling A5 and others to go away. The complicity of A5 is stated to be established by the prosecution not only by the alleged confessional statements of the accused, but also from cell phone call particulars. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A5 was not having a cell phone of his own. A3 and A4 who were stated to be with A5 were having cell

¶6

phones and A1 was contacting the party consisting of A3 to A5 through their cell phones. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A5, who was working as a Security Guard at Hyderabad, is a native of Nandyal and that he happened to go to A4, who is also a native of Nandyal, for the purpose of borrowing loan and that he was unnecessarily and falsely implicated in this case. The said defence version put forward by the petitioner’s counsel is matter for trial and to be appreciated by the trial Court after leading of evidence on both sides. Having regard to the allegations of conspiracy coupled with presence and following the car of the deceased and A1 at the relevant time, this Court does not find any reason to grant bail to A5 pending trial even though he has been in custody since 30.1.2011. The case is already committed to the Court of Session and is awaiting framing of charges

¶7

therein.

¶8

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶9

JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

rkk Dt.03.10.2012

Avula Venkata Ramana , Ramana v. State rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avula Venkata Ramana , Ramana v. State rep. by P.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

Shaik Zubair Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Rasheeda Begum Vs M.Srinivas Rao

Neeta Jain, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Fizikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Drugs Inspector

R.Malliswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Fizikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Drugs Inspector