Dismissed

Pappala Dharma Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC29 Jan 2013CRLP/371/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner, charged with offences under the I.P.C. for allegedly leading an unlawful assembly, did not deserve bail. The Court relied on the material in the First Information Report attributing specific overt acts to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed.

Pappala Dharma Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.371 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The petitioner is A.9 in Crime No.129 of 2012 of Polaki P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 143, 146, 307, 443, 427, 324 and 323 read with 149 of I.P.C.

¶4

The accusation made against the petitioner is that he along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking Gangitla Narsimhulu and in pursuance of the common object, attack has been made on Gangitla Narsimhulu and also some others and caused injuries to him and others. All the injured came to be shifted to the hospital from the scene of offence.

¶5

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

¶6

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate apart from being an Ex-Sarpanch of Advarampeta and in the event of his arrest, there is every likelihood of his name being defamed and therefore he deserves for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also contended by him that the presence of the petitioner at the time of the incident is very much doubtful.

¶7

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the application on the ground that the participation of the petitioner has been stated in the First Information Report and many persons of the complainant party received injuries.

¶8

As seen from the complaint lodged by Gangitla Vykuntam, the name of the petitioner finds place and specific overt acts have been attributed to him and the injured persons in the incident have been shifted to the hospital from the scene of offence. Such is the material

¶9

placed on record, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶10

_______________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 29^th January, 2013 smr/sr

Pappala Dharma Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappala Dharma Rao, 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

Smt. B.Laxmi Vs Govt. of Ap

Guggilla Ratnachary Vs The State of Ap.

Tiruveedhi Nagaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Ahmed Vs Krishna Babu

Puttapogu Srinivasulu Vs The State of a.P., rep. by the Spl. P.P.

Sagiraju Appala Trinadha Varma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh