Dismissed

Bathula Salmon v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Telangana HC16 Dec 2014CRLP/14976/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for bail enlargement due to failure of the trial court to complete the trial within three months as per a previous direction. The High Court rejected the bail application despite the procedural default, citing gravity of offences and risk of repeat crimes, while directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications dismissed; Trial Court directed to complete trial within six months or proceed day-to-day.

Bathula Salmon Vs State of Andhra Pradesh. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRL.PETITION Nos. 14976, 14999, 15000 and 15001 of 2014

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the petitioner in all the four petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.14976 of 2014 is accused No.5 in S.C.No.595 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, arising out of Crime No.356 of 2008 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 396, 400, 402, 412, 414 and 201 IPC and Section 25 (1) (a) (1-AA) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶6

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.14999 of 2014 is accused No.2 in S.C.No.91 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, arising out of Crime No.140 of 2008 of Maddipadu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 396, 400, 402, 412, 414 and 201 IPC.

¶7

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.15000 of 2014 is accused No.3 in S.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, arising out of Crime No.142 of 2008 of Maddipadu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25 (2) (1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶8

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.15001 of 2014 is accused No.5 in S.C.No.73 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, arising out of Crime No.150 of 2008 of Singarayakonda Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 396, 400, 402, 412, 414 and 201 IPC.

¶9

These four applications are moved by the petitioner seeking enlargement on bail in the Sessions Case on the ground that a direction was given by the Court for completion of the trial within a period of three months is not complied with.

¶10

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications contending that if the petitioner is released on bail there is likelihood of he tampering with the evidence and there is every possibility of petitioner evading the process of law.

¶11

A perusal of the material placed before the Court would show that the petitioner herein was arrested on 26.07.2008. In connection with all the cases, the Sessions Court granted bail on 15.04.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner jumped bail which lead to issuance of non-bailable warrant by the concerned Court on 14.10.2011. Pursuant there to, the petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed bail applications before Sessions Court in all the cases which were rejected. Challenging the same the petitioner filed Criminal Petition Nos. 5032, 5034, 5035 and 5036 of 2013 seeking bail. By an order dated 19.06.2013 this Court dismissed the application. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed Criminal Petition Nos.8558, 8661, 8662 and 8663 of 2014 seeking bail. By an order dated 31.07.2014 this Court rejected the bail applications, but however directed the trial Court to make every endeavour to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the Court directed the trial Court to seek extension of time assigning the reasons. Since the trial could not be completed within a period of three months, the present applications are filed.

¶12

The instructions which are passed on across the bar by the learned Public Prosecutor would show that since accused No.1 was found absconding for long time the case against him was split up and there after in the month of February, 2014 accused No.4 was arrested. The instructions also disclose that accused No.4 is taking time on the ground of engaging counsel and he is postponing the commencement of trial on one pretext or the other. Apart from that the instructions received by the learned Public Prosecutor would show that after the release of the petitioner on bail on 16.04.2010 he got himself involved in two cases ie. Crime No.184 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Crime No.259 of 2011 registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Apart from that in Crime No.11 of 2012 which was registered under Section 379 IPC the petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. On appeal the conviction and sentence was confirmed by the V

¶13

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole. As on today there are five cases pending against the petitioner. It is stated that if the petitioner is released on bail there is every likelihood of he committing offences of similar nature and his presence outside endangers the society as he is habituated to commit grievous/serious offences. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that it is not a case to release the petitioner on bail though the direction of this Court for completion of trial within three months was not complied with.

¶14

A perusal of the record reveals that the trial Court could not complete the trial due to non-co-operation of the accused. Having regard to the gravity of the offence with which the petitioner is charged and as the petitioner is in jail for the last three years, the learned trial Judge is advised to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If he fails to do so he should take all steps for separating the case of the petitioner and proceed with the trial of the case on day today basis.

¶15

With the above directions, all the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.

¶16

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶17

gkv

¶18

16.12.2014

Bathula Salmon v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathula Salmon v. 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

Rayabandi Surya Prakash Charry , Charry Vs The State of Telangana

Sultana , Naseem Sultana Vs The State of Telganana

Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Salmon, Prakasam Dist. Vs State of Andhra PRadesh

Bathula Salmon Vs The State of Ap.

Yelchuri Prabhakara Rao Vs The State of A.P