Allowed

Vepakayala Sai Baba, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Oct 2013CRLP/11365/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court decided a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged offence of selling a leased lorry without the complainant's knowledge and granted bail with surrender and bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners directed to surrender within 20 days and released on bail with personal bonds of Rs. 10,000 each and two sureties of like sum.

Vepakayala Sai Baba, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: R.KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRLP .NO:11365 of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

1. Vepakayala Sai Baba, S/o Veeraju,

¶8

2. Matha Prasad, S/o Ganga Raju,

¶9

..... Petitioners/ Accused Nos 3 & 4

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶12

.....Respondent/ Complainant

¶13

Petition under section 438 of Cr.PC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners in connection with Cr.No.66 of 2013 on the file of Samisrigudem PS., West Godavari District.

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memo of grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A3 and A-4 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶17

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the de facto complainant leased out the lorry to the first accused and subsequently, it is alleged that A-1 sold away the lorry without the knowledge of the de facto complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/A-3 and A-4 were nothing

¶19

to do with the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. Further, to the notice issued by the de facto complainant, the first petitioner sent a prompt reply stating that he has nothing to do with the lorry and the lorry was not in his possession.

¶20

.2..

¶21

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners have really nothing to do with the offence alleged and hence, they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶22

Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners/A-3 and A-4 are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Samisrigudem Police Station, West Godavari District within (20) days from the date of this order and thereafter, they shall be released on bail on their executing personal bonds in a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said S.H.O.

¶23

Sd/-C.V. Mallikarjuna Varma ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶26

¶27

1. The Station House Officer, Samsrigudem Police Station, West Godavari District

¶28

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

¶29

3. One CC to Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

¶30

4. One spare copy

Skm

HIGH COURT

RKR,J

Drafted by: skm Drafted on: 22-10-2013

¶35

DATE: 08-10-2013

¶36

BAIL ORDER

¶37

CRL.P. NO. 11365 of 2013

Vepakayala Sai Baba, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vepakayala Sai Baba, 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

Koyyalamudi Bhagya Padmavathi Vs The State of A.P.

Madugula Shankar, Vs State of A.P.

Boya Pamaiahgari Thimmalaiah Thimma Reddy, Vs The state

Machupalli Srinivasulu Naidu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Balam Prasad Vs The State of Ap.

Smt. Padmaja Chowdary Vs State of A.P.