Dismissed

Cheelasani Janardhan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Aug 2014CRLP/9402/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by accused Nos.3 and 5 seeking anticipatory bail. The Court held the application unsustainable due to their prior unsuccessful quash petition and observations made in an earlier interim bail order disqualifying them based on the gravity of charges and propensity of crime involved.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed as it is not sustainable after prior observations reflecting the gravity of the case.

Cheelasani Janardhan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9402 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in Crime No.42/2014 of Sodam Police Station, Sodam, Chittoor district registered against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 149 I.P.C.

¶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. These petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 5 and the petitioners went unsuccessful in quash proceedings covered by Crl.P.No.8319 of 2014 but for obtaining a direction by an order dated 13.07.2014 not to arrest pending investigation. According to them, the investigation is completed and filing of charge sheet by police under Section 173 Cr.P.C remained. Besides these petitioners, A-2 also moved this Court for anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.5483 of 2014 and this Court by order dated 09.07.2014 from the say by 2^nd accused that there was marriage of his daughter that was to be performed on 30.06.2014 and enclosed wedding invitation granted interim bail from 17.06.2014 till 04.07.2014 and posted for further hearing. However, A-2 abused the said concession and so far as the other accused Nos.3 to 5 who are the petitioners herein, this Court at para No.4 of the order categorically observed that the injured as inpatient discharged later, from the propensity of the crime against these petitioners with prima facie accusation, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail within the four corners of Section 438 Cr.P.C, but for to surrender and move for regular bail to decide on own merits.

¶6

4. Having regard to the above, this application, again moved for anticipatory bail, is not sustainable and hence the same is liable to be

¶7

dismissed for no even worth circumstances in favour of granting anticipatory bail.

¶8

5. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶9

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶10

August 20, 2014 ksh

Cheelasani Janardhan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheelasani Janardhan 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

G. Chandramma Vs State of A.P.

Banoth Ramesh Vs The State of telangana

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

chowhan lokya naik Vs The State of telangana

Dasireddy Anjaneya Raju , Pullayya Vs The State of A.P.

G.Vishamber Vs State of A.P.