Dismissed

Md.Anwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2014CRLP/10244/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application filed by an accused charged with robbery, extortion, and cheating. The court noted the petitioner's history of multiple crimes and affirmed that personal liberty does not entitle a non-bailable offender to freedom if the prosecution case warrants detention.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Md.Anwar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10244 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.97 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, Medak District registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 384, 448, 427 IPC.

¶4

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

3. This petitioner is the sole accused. The factual matrix including from the case record show that based on the complaint/report dated 19.02.2014 of the de facto complainant Rathan Lal Prakash employee of Balaji jewellers belong to one Kesaram went for Rajastan. He was incharge of the shop. The accused person entered the shop with butcher’s knife and threatened to kill him his demands for money from refusal by the de facto complainant. The accused also damaged the shop articles and when the complainant raised hue and cry, neighbours gathered and on seeing, neighbours having collected from the counter chased Rs,500/- he fled away. It is there from the crime is registered the petitioner earlier moved for regular bail went unsuccessful before the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by order dated 24.07.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.693 of 2014. He is in judicial custody since 25.02.2014.

¶6

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent and falsely implicated. In fact a perusal of the case record shows that he is a habitual and notorious criminal and involved in more than eight crimes viz 19 of 2008, 202 of 2009, 528 of 2009, 473 of 2009, 346 of 2011, 67 of 2012, 222 of 2012 and 192 of 2013 besides the present crime and a perusal of the case record shows it is his modus operandi in exploiting

¶7

the public in collecting money for his vices and attacking them in achieving his end.

¶8

5. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/bail applicant, it is the duty of the Court to balance the propensity of the crime with personal libelrty and personal liberty is precious. However, the Court cannot forget the social evil from such a person more particularly from the expression of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav at para 18 that perosnal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is no doubt a constitutional guarantee. However the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law and such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of nonbailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that inspite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so.

¶9

6. In the present factual matrix, the petitioner even he is in judicial custody since 25.02.2014 does not deserve for the concession of bail.

¶10

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶11

Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶12

10^th September, 2014 PNV

Md.Anwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Anwar v. The State of Telangana

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

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.R.Janardhanareddy Vs C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy

Kaki Nagaraju, Vs The State of Telangana

Sk. Jafrulla, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Shashidhar Goud, Vs D. Ashok

Osmanuddin, Vs State of Telangana