Dismissed

Rayakam Kanukaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2014CRLP/10459/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail as they were found guilty of significant genuine offenses including illegal sand excavation. Instead, the court directed surrender for regular bail and mandated the Magistrate to consider it within the same or next day.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to surrender before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail within 15 days.

Rayakam Kanukaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10459 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in Crime No.83 of 2014 registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.

¶4

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

¶5

3. The petitioners are the owners of the Swaraj Tractors and in fact it is for the excavation of the sand illegally without permission or licence and illegal transportation to wrongful gain. The offences that are applicable are besides the above penal provisions under Andhra Pradesh Mining Act, Damage to Public Property Act and Bio Diversity Act. No doubt it appears the sand was seized and recovered and vehicles were released by imposing penalty. The vehicles there from seized. The petitioner No.1 is the owner of Swaraj Tractor No.AP 15 TC 5617, Petitioner No.2 is owner of Swaraj Tractor No.AP 01 AA 9804 and the Petitioner No.3 is the owner of a new Swaraj Tractor Trailer and they are shown as accused Nos.5 to 7. Thereby the contention of the petitioners that the offences punishable are only under Section 379 is notable, so also the vehicles seized were when lying park on road side illegally without basis is also not tenable from what the panchanama refers supra.

¶6

4. Taking consideration of the propensity of the crime, none of the petitioners are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, but for in considering the personal liberty for regular bail. It is needless to say in granting regular bail one of the conditions to be imposed by the learned Magistrate concerned are that if in future they repeat such crime, the bail shall stand be cancelled. It is subject to the above, instead of dismissing the application, this application is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitionersaccused to surrender before the Learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C by virtue of this order, move before the learned Magistrate for regular bail within 15 days from the date of receipt of this

¶7

order and with notice to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Magistrate shall consider by granting bail in favour of the petitioners/Accused preferably on same day if not atleast by next day with necessary conditions.

¶8

5. Accordingly, these three criminal petitions are disposed of.

¶9

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 12^th September, 2014 ksh

Rayakam Kanukaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayakam Kanukaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murikunta Lakshman Vs The State of Ap.

Makireddy Sree Rama Murthy Vs The State of Ap.

Shaik Jani Basha, , Jan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddireddi Narasimha Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Nyala Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana

P. Raviprakash, Vs The State of A.P.