Disposed

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy v. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC16 Jul 2014WP/19888/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed by senior government assistants against their repeated summons for investigation. The court deemed names absent from FIRs and dismissed anticipatory bail earlier, but following a commitment by authorities to follow Section 41 Cr.P.C, directed that petitioners not be confined in police stations and that statutory notice procedures be followed if presence is required.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent not to confine petitioners in police station daily; to follow Section 41 Cr.P.C. if presence is needed.

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.19888 and 19931 of 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER

¶3

Since the facts in both these writ petitions are similar, they are being disposed of together for the purpose of convenience.

¶4

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶5

3. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that they have been repeatedly called to the police station to assist the 4^th respondent for the purpose of investigation in Cr.Nos.80 and 95 of 2014 of Karimnagar III Town Police Station, registered on the basis of the complaints filed by the District Registrar, Karimnagar District, dated 07.04.2014 and 08.05.2014 respectively. Petitioners state that they are working as Senior Assistants in the office of the 5^th respondent and their names are not mentioned either in the complaints or in the FIRs. It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioners are being required to attend the 4^th respondent for the purpose of investigation. Apprehending that they will also be roped in the said offences and would be arrested, they sought anticipatory bail by approaching the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, but the same was dismissed on 05.06.2014 on the ground that as on that date, FIR does not show their names, and since the investigation is at initial stage, there was no reason to grant anticipatory bail to

¶6

them. Petitioners state that even at present, their names do not figure as an accused in the said crimes and they are merely being asked to assist the 4^th respondent during investigation.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners’ work in the office is being effected as they are required to attend the 4^th respondent from morning to evening. He further contended that the 4^th respondent should follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41 Cr.P.C, and give notice to the petitioners, if their presence is necessary for investigation.

¶8

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the Investigating Officer will follow the procedure of Criminal Procedure Code and would take necessary steps in conducting investigation with regard to the petitioners’ assistance.

¶9

6. In view of the said assurance by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent not to confine the petitioners in the police station for the purpose of investigation throughout the day so as to ensure that they are able to work in their office, and if their presence is required for any other purpose, the 4^th respondent shall follow the provisions of Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code and other provisions.

¶10

7. With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶12

16^th July, 2014 sj

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy v. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy v. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Thimmakka, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Panyam Ashok Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

Vinjam Penchalaiah, Vs State of A.P.

Kapde Penthu, S/o. Penthu Vs The Government of Telangana

K Devi Vs The Mandal Revenue officer