Dismissed

Kataru Chinna Maddileti Naidu, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014CRLP/11498/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail against offences under the A.P. Forest Act and related laws. The Court held that the petitioner did not desert the exception requiring false implication based on the crime's propensity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; no anticipatory bail granted.

Kataru Chinna Maddileti Naidu, Vs State of A.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11498 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A.4 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in Crime No.131 of 2014 of Tsundupalli Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered against him and others for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, Section 29(1) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 read with Rule 3 of the A.P. Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984.

¶4

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

3. This petitioner is A.4 among five accused. The crime is registered for the offences punishable offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, Section 29(1) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 read with Rule 3 of the A.P. Red Sandal Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, apart from it, the provisions of Biodiversity Act, 2002 also apply to the facts. The averments show the petitioner and others while illegally transporting 20 red sandal logs weighing about 474 kgs, worth of Rs.7,58,400/-, the

¶6

concerned authorities seized same under the cover of panchanama.

¶7

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and he was not caught hold of any possession, thereby the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶8

5. Perused the material on record. From the propensity of the crime, there is nothing to share the accusation is false within the exception to Section 438 sub Section 1 Cr.P.C., the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶9

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶10

___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 25^th September 2014

¶11

mar

Kataru Chinna Maddileti Naidu, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kataru Chinna Maddileti Naidu, v. 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

Surendra Naidu, 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

Noor Mohammad Vs The Government of A.P.

Ramaraju Bhadragiri Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ramaraju Bhadragiri Rao Vs The State of Telangana