Dismissed

Gurrala Surendranath , Suri and Another v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014CRLP/9083/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a bail application for accused persons A.12 and A.13 in a murder conspiracy case. The bench held that remand reports showed the petitioners were privy to the nefarious plan. Since prime accused were at large and life was threatened, bail was deemed inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition for bail was dismissed; petitioners are not entitled to bail.

Gurrala Surendranath , Suri and Another Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9083 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners/A.12 and A.13 in Crime No.199 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Kurnool III Town Police Station, Kurnool district, registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 147,148,302, 109,120(B) read with 149 of I.P.C. and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act.

¶4

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

¶5

3. The defacto-complainant is the son of the deceased Besta Sai Eshwarudu. The report of the defacto-complainant(himself and his brother-in-law by name Ramesh are the eye witnesses to the occurrence), speaks that the incident was occurred on 15.03.2014 and his father earlier was close associate to A.6 whose son is A.7 and A.5 is nephew of A.7, and there were differences between them and the deceased joined hands in the Congress party with support to the opponent of the A.5 to A.7 and it is because of the efforts of deceased the Congress party M.L.A. by name Gowru Charita was elected earlier (in 2004 General Elections) and later one Labbi Venkataswamy (in 2009 General Elections) who defeated the supporting candidate of A.5 to A.7 and since then, on that ground, the accused persons 5 to 7 one way or other planned to eliminate the deceased from their way to their political life and progress and waiting for opportunity and as part of their nefarious plans, they conspired by taking the assistance of the hired goons to discharge their grudge on the deceased and the A.5 Byreddy Siddhartha Reddy sent a message to deceased to kill the persons who comes in their way but the deceased did not respond and on the fateful day i.e. on 15.03.2014 at about 5.45P.M. when the deceased went out of

¶6

their house to meet his friends near Sakunthala Kalyana Mandapam, and accidentally the defacto-complainant and his brother-in-law Ramesh started to go to More market on foot, while so near the house of Doctor Saleem, they heard the cries of deceased and rushed there and noticed the villagers of Muchamarri village by names Katika Chicken Basha(A.1), Boya Maddileti(A.2), Boya Naga Raju(A.3), P.Uduri Ramakrishna(A.4) armed with weapons, knives and rods attacked and among them A.1 hacked on right side face and on head, A.2 with knife hacked on the back parietal region of head, A.3 with knife near stomach on right side and A.4 with knife hacked on the head and while they were trying to intervene there are three more persons armed with knives in support of them on either side of the road and they pointed knives to the defacto-complainant and his brother-in-law and out of fear of attack them also they could not rescue and the A.1 with knife ultimately hacked on the throat of the deceased and all the persons fled away in auto to their noticing.

¶7

4. On perusal of the remand report shows these three accused persons are no other than either A.1 to A.10 or A.11 to A.13. The report and remand report further show when they went to the injured, they found that he breathed the last, hence, to take action saying it is at the instance of the A.5 to A.7, these hired goons killed his father. The remand report further shows all the accused persons 1 to 4 and 8 to 13 of which the petitioners are A.12 and A.13 are the hired goons and among them but for these petitioners A.12 and A.13, for others there is past criminal record, and it further discloses that these petitioners and other accused are close friends of A.14 making the nefarious plans and privy and conspired and in taking the opportunity to eliminate the deceased, including by arranging weapons and there were phone conversations and phone calls including so far as this A.12 concerned, more than 21 times, with other accused and A.13 also shown as part of conspirators in that

¶8

brutal attack.

¶9

5. The contentions of the petitioners in the bail application is that, even from the remand report there is nothing to show these petitioners are at the scene much less participants to the alleged attack and the so called conspiracy is outcome of a false implication to them, hence, they are entitled to concession of bail taking into consideration of their personal liberty as police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet and that they are languishing in judicial custody since 28.03.2014 having been arrested on 27.03.2014.

¶10

6. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by saying the prime accused are A.5 to A.7 and they are still to be arrested as they are fleeing away of which A.5(it appears surrendered) and A.6 and A.7 still to be apprehended being co-conspirators, they cannot be granted bail, more particularly, for a threat of life like that of the deceased not only to the defacto-complainant who came forward with his application to assist the prosecution and permitted under Section 24(8) proviso of amended Cr.P.C. in submitting and supporting the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and though silent as that of the signature of the defacto-complainant through the sister of the defactocomplainant, another permission application is filed and the same was allowed believing that it is the signature of the defactocomplainant and admitted under Section 24(8) proviso Cr.P.C. and ultimately after submission of the arguments from the persons of the defacto complainant before this Court yesterday, it came to light from comparison of his signature that it is not that of him, the permission since cancelled, fresh permission is filed by the said advocate to the wife and son-in-law of the deceased and permitted so far as the wife of the deceased also as a victim to assist the prosecution, who

¶11

submitted arguments in support of the learned Public Prosecutor in opposing the bail application mainly solely on the ground, that apart from other contentions, that there are no grounds to plea of the bail even there is no past record against these petitioners A.12 and A.13 being the privy to the crime outcome of a conspiracy more particularly disclosing from the remand report particulars and there is a life threat to the defacto complainant and other witnesses, from the manner in which the crime is perpetrated and the bail petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

7. Though the petitioners A.12 and A.13 not involved earlier in any crimes as submitted by the learned counsel for the bail applicants, on perusal of the remand report clearly discloses that they are also privy and part of the nefarious plan and conspiracy to say there is a prima facie accusation, though truth or otherwise required to be decided in trial, and more particularly the A.6 and A.7main perpetrators to the crime are still at large. From the above factum, the petitioners herein are not entitled to the concession of bail.

¶13

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶14

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶15

Dt. 14.08.2014. vvr

Gurrala Surendranath , Suri and Another v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurrala Surendranath , Suri and Another v. the 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

Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, Vs M/s. Kamala Computers (p) Ltd., rep by its managing

Devireddy Jayaramudu, Vs The State of A.P.

Champa Lal Rawal, Vs State of Telangana through Ccs Hyderabad Ps

G. Chandramma Vs State of A.P.

Banoth Ramesh Vs The State of telangana

Arvind Gopal Krishna Chawda, Vs State of Ap.