Disposed

G. Chandramma v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014CRLP/9311/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Instead of granting pre-arrest bail, liberty was granted to the accused to surrender to a Magistrate to apply for regular bail. An authorization for police custody up to 15 days was given.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to surrender before Magistrate to seek regular bail; police custody permitted for next 15 days with Magistrate permission.

G. Chandramma Vs State of A.P. — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9311 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioners/Accused No.1 in Crime No.38/ 2014 on the file of the Renigunta Urban Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 341, 355, 506 & 109 IPC.

¶4

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

¶5

3. The report of the de facto complainant is that he was working as Village Revenue Officer by name T.Bhaskar, on 12.03.1014 at about 11.00 am while he was working as VRO in MRO’s Office, Renigunta Mandal, A-1 to A-5 came to him and on the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 prevented the de facto complainant to discharge his duties, A-1 caught hold the de facto complainant by his hair and beat him with chappal on his face, kicked him and abused him in filthy language including in the presence of Tahsildar among other public and there from the crime is registered.

¶6

4. The learned sessions Judge dismissed the bail application in Crl.M.P. No.709 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 reflects the incident as above, the petitioner along with her husband filed bail application before this Court vide Crl.P. No.5501 of 2014 and the same was partly allowed and dismissed the petitioner’s bail application.

¶7

5. The contention of the petitioner that it is a false accusation from her report against the de facto complainant herein dated 20.02.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC & ST Act and 354 IPC is untenable, more particularly from the letter of Tahsildar showing the occurrence is happened.

¶8

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and propensity of crime, instead of dismissing from the petitioner not entitled

¶9

to the pre-arrest bail, but for regular bail in considering his personal liberty, this application is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioneraccused 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 and with notice to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge/Magistrate 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.

¶10

7. In the event of the police making out a case for police custody for the purpose of interrogation, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the further investigation remained if any, with the permission of the Magistrate concerned, within 15 days from today, who can grant such police custody, subject to necessary precautions and instructions as per the constitutional bench expression of Apex Court in guideline No.iv in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab^[1] .

¶11

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶12

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 14^th August, 2014 knl

¶13

[1] (1980)2 SCC 565

G. Chandramma v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Chandramma 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

Cases cited

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

Banoth Ramesh Vs The State of telangana

Gurrala Surendranath , Suri and Another Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Arvind Gopal Krishna Chawda, Vs State of Ap.