Allowed

G.Sujan Vathsal v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC27 Sept 2013CRLP/10482/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh hearing Cr. P. No. 10482 of 2013 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted anticipatory bail to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 facing charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in Hayathnagar P.S. case, directing surrender within 20 days subject to bond.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail; direction to surrender within 20 days upon executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

G.Sujan Vathsal Vs The State of Ap. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶2

:PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 10482 OF 2013

¶4

Between

¶5

1. G. Sujan Vathsal S/o G. Bhasker Rao

¶6

2. M.V. Samba Shiva Rao S/o Late Veera Rahavaiah

¶7

...Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 &

¶8

3 (in Cr. No. 587 of 2013 on the file of

¶9

Hayathnagar P.S., Ranga Reddy District.)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of A.P., through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondent/Complainant

¶12

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS : Sri K. Ravindra Babu COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : The Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

Petition under Section 438 of Crl. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the memo of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar, Cyberabad to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 587 of 2013 U/s. 420, 406 I.P./C., on the file of the Hayathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶14

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :

¶15

“This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners-Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.587 of 2013 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

¶16

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

¶17

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that A1, who is the prime accused in this case was granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners – A2 and A3 can also be granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners – Accused Nos.2 and 3 are therefore directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, within twenty days from the date of this order and thereafter, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Investigating Officer.”

¶20

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY //

¶21

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶22

¶23

1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

¶24

2. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hyathnagar.

¶25

3. The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶26

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

¶27

5. One CC to Sri K. Ravindra Babu, Advocate (OPUC)

¶28

6. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

RKR.J

DATED: 27-09-2013

¶33

ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶34

CRL.P. NO. 10482 OF 2013

¶35

GRANTING BAIL IN THE EVENT OF SURRENDER

¶36

DRAFTED: BY BV DATED: 27-09-2013

¶37

HIGH COURT

¶38

RKR.J

¶39

DATED: 27-09-2013

¶40

ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶41

CRL.P. NO. 10482 OF 2013

¶42

GRANTING BAIL IN THE EVENT OF SURRENDER

G.Sujan Vathsal v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sujan Vathsal v. The State of Ap.

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

Tagaram Ashok Vs The State, Rep by its Public Prosecutor

Medasari Chinna Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramireddy Pakkeera Reddy Vs The Sho., Lingala Ps.

Kaluva Chinnaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.G.K.Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddam Narsimha Vs The State of a.p., through SHO Jangaon Ps