Partly allowed

Mandati Jalapathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Jun 2013CRLP/5677/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed anticipatory bail petition for accused 1-4 as two were already arrested and offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate. Granted anticipatory bail to female accused 5-7 conditioned on surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to accused 5, 6, 7 pending surrender before trial court within two weeks. Petitions of accused 1 to 4 dismissed.

Mandati Jalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶5

CRL.P.No. 5677 of 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Mandati Jalapathi, S/o Jangaiah,

¶8

2 Pendram Sunga, S/o Karaiah,

¶9

3 Pendram Maruthi, S/o Sungaiah,

¶10

4 Mandati Sagar, S/o Jagan,

¶11

5 Chakati Rambai, D/o Bheemaiah,

¶12

6 Pendram Bojjubai, W/ Sungaiah,

¶13

7 Marsukolla Bhudevi, W/o Laxman

¶14

Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 7

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of A.P., rep. by i5w Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶17

Respondent/Complainant

¶18

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI. V. RAGHUNATH COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners / accused No.1 to 7 on Anticipatory bail in Crime No.44 of 2013 of P.S., Sarangapur, Karimnagar District of the alleged offence u/Sec. 447 & 379 of IPC., in the event of arrest.

¶20

The Court made the following Order:

¶21

The petitioners are accused 1 to 7. They sought for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 447 and 379 IPC.

¶22

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 have already been arrested. This petition became infructuous so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned. This petition therefore is liable to be dismissed so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned.

¶23

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class. I therefore am not inclined to consider the application on merits. It would be appropriate for

¶24

the petitioners to surrender before the trial court and move the trial court for grant of regular bail.

¶25

4. However, petitioners 5, 6 and 7 are women. In view of their sex, I deem it appropriate to consider the case of the petitioners 5, 6 and 7 for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶26

¶27

5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part.

¶28

The petitioners 5, 6 and 7-accused 5, 6 and 7 are granted anticipatory bail. They shall surrender before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, within two weeks from today. On such surrender, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, shall enlarge the petitioners 5, 6 and 7-accused 5, 6 and 7 on bail on

¶29

a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each in a like sum to his satisfaction.

¶30

6. Petition against the petitioners 1 to 4-accused 1 to 4 is dismissed. Accused 1 to 4 may surrender before the trial court and move the trial court for grant of regular bail. In such an event, the trial court shall consider the application of accused 1 to 4 on merits and shall dispose of the same on the same day on which it is filed.

¶31

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶34

¶35

1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

¶36

2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, Karimnagar District.

¶37

3. The Station House Officer, Sarangapur Police Station, Karimnagar District

¶38

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

¶39

5. One CC to Sri. V. Raghunath, Advocate (OPUC)

¶40

6. One Spare copy

HIGH COURT

KGSJ

DT. 28-6-2013

BAIL ORDER

CRL.P.NO.5677 OF 2013

¶47

DIRECTION

¶48

Drafted by: KK Drafted on: 28-6-2013

HIGH COURT

KGS

DT. 28-6-2013

BAIL ORDER

CRL.P.NO.5677 OF 2013

¶54

DIRECTION

Mandati Jalapathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandati Jalapathi, 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

G.Anitha Rani Vs B.Prasad Rao

K. Saradamba Vs Sri Venkateswara University

G. Anitha Rani Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

A.a.Koteswara Rao, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple and Sri Malleswara Swamy Vs The Commissioner, Government of a.P., Endowments

K.Mohan Reddy, Vs K.Shiva Jyothy