Dismissed

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Mar 2013CRLP/1673/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition for anticipatory bail, the High Court dismissed the application. The Court found no changed circumstances since a similarly situated accused in a related case lacked the same grounds for bail as the petitioner, who was a principal offender in document fabrication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is at liberty to surrender and move an application for regular bail to be considered promptly.

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No. 1673 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.133 of 2011 of Tanuku Town Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.

¶5

2) This is the second anticipatory bail application. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 11.12.2012 vide Crl.Petition No.8539 of 2012.

¶6

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

¶7

4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that A-6, who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner, has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court as per orders dated 09.01.2013 vide Crl.Petition No.9498 of 2012 and therefore, the petitioner deserves for the same relief. A further contention has been advanced that mere fabrication of the documents is not an offence and therefore, even if the accusation against the petitioner as to fabrication of the documents is considered, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶8

5) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State opposed the application on the ground that there are no changed circumstances.

¶9

6) It is a fact that A-6 has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this court as per orders in Crl.Petition No.9498 of 2012. One of the grounds for granting anticipatory bail to A-6 is that he was the complainant who informed the police with regard to the

¶10

offence. Coming to the case against the petitioner, he is the person who fabricated the documents and took a lead role in getting the loan sanctioned by A-1 basing on the fabricated documents. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim parity with A-6 who has been admitted to anticipatory bail as per orders in Crl.P.No.9498 of 2012. There are no changed circumstances that enure to the benefit of the petitioner to renew his request for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶11

7) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the concerned Court and move an application seeking for regular bail. In which event, the concerned Court has to consider the application on the same day as practicably as possible.

¶12

________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶13

13^th March, 2013 gm/vjl

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Prameela, Vs A.K. Khan

Meda Srilatha, Vs Meda Malla Reddy

B.Narayana, Vs Sri K.Sampath Kumar

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh