Partly allowed

O. Lurdhu Raju, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Feb 2016CRLP/1174/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was filed regarding alleged offences of cheating. The court granted bail only to female petitioners (A.2, A.5, A.6) with conditions, directing their surrender and bond execution, while dismissing the petition against male petitioners (A.1, A.3, A.4), resulting in a partly allowed order.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners A.2, A.5, A.6 on surrender with personal bond of Rs.10,000 each with one surety; petition dismissed against petitioners A.1, A.3, A.4.

O. Lurdhu Raju, Vs State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1174 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners/A.1, A.2, A.4, A.5 and A.6 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with crime No.390 of 2015 on the file of the Police Station, Amalapuram Town, East Godavari District, registered for the offences under Section 417, 420, 406 IPC and Sections 66 and 66-D of Information Technology Act.

¶5

Heard and perused the records.

¶6

The allegation against the petitioners herein is that they have collected the amounts from the de facto complainant by promising him to arrange subsidized loans and later, the petitioners failed to arrange the loans and did not repay the amounts collected from the complainant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged against them and they are law abiding citizens. He further submits that they are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and as such, prays this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the petitioners 2, 5 and 6/A.2, A.5 and A.6, being ladies, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the said petitioners only.

¶9

The petitioners 2, 5 and 6/A.2, A.5 and A.6 are directed to surrender before the Magistrate concerned on or before 25.02.2016 and on such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on the same day on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. The petitioners 2, 5 and 6/A.2, A.5 and A.6 are directed to appear before the Station House Officer concerned as and when required.

¶10

Insofar as other petitioners, i.e., petitioners 1, 3 and 4 herein are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and as such, the petition insofar as them are concerned, is dismissed.

¶11

The Criminal Petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶12

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

09.02.2015 pln

O. Lurdhu Raju, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. Lurdhu Raju, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Krishna Goud, Vs State of Telangana

Rathode Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Dikkala Deena Dayal , Tagore Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Roya Rozati Vs The State of Telangana

Sivaiah Obbai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karre Srisailam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh