Partly allowed

Surendra Naidu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Sept 2014CRLP/11086/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition was filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C regarding suspected involvement in red sandal wood smuggling. The Single Judge denied anticipatory bail but granted liberty to surrender for regular bail before the Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to surrender for regular bail before Sessions Judge; anticipatory bail denied.

Surendra Naidu, Vs The State of A.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11086 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner/A-6 in Crime No.59 of 2014 of Rompicherla Police Station, Chittoor District, registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 29 and 32 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act.

¶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. The petitioner is A6 among 12 accused. The propensity of the crime is against A1 and A2 as they were caught red handed and also against A8 to A12 at whose active connivance being the red sandal smugglers, the other accused resorting to depletion of sandal wood by uprooting the trees and smuggling the same by illegal transport for gain. Among A3 to A7, others were arrested and enlarged on bail, it appears, but for the petitioner, A6 and also A4 still to be arrested.

¶6

4. No doubt, the allegations against the petitioner are in general and even from a perusal of the CD file, there are no any bad antecedents so far as the petitioner concerned of involved in any earlier crime much less of similar nature. However, from consideration of the remand report and other material, there is sum and substance in the accusation against the petitioner in committing the crime of red sandal wood by cutting and transporting illegally.

¶7

5. Having regard to the above, the petitioner does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail, but for regular bail in considering his personal liberty, this application is disposed of rather than dismissal, by giving liberty to the petitioner-accused No.6 to surrender before the

¶8

Learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C by virtue of this order and move before the learned Sessions Judge with affidavit of surrender for regular bail and with notice to learned Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioner with necessary conditions preferably on the same day if not atleast by the next day subject to somebody come forward other than the accused person to take care of him .

¶9

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶10

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶11

24^th September, 2014

¶12

Surendra Naidu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Naidu, v. The State of A.P.

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

Mirza Mustafa Ali Baig Kamal Vs Smt. Azra Shahen

K.Veera Raghava Reddy, Vs The STate of Telangana

chodagiri vijaya kumar , Galebu Vs The State of A.P.

Sri Pallerlamudi Venkata Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandham Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jangam Veera Sasidhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh