Allowed

Pasupuleti Durgamba v. The State of A.P

Telangana HC21 Jul 2016CRLP/7782/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Hyderabad heard an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Pasupuleti Durgamba in connection with alleged cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court directed that the petitioner not be arrested and directed her to appear for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioner and directing the petitioner to appear before the concerned police for interrogation.

Pasupuleti Durgamba Vs The State of A.P — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT URE AT HYDERABAD FOR T HE ST AT E OF T ELANGANA AND T HE ST AT E OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

¶2

: PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶4

CRLP .No. 7782 of 2016

¶5

Between:Pasupuleti Durgamba W/o. P.V.V. Krishnam Raju, Occ : Housewife.

¶6

.. Petitioner/Accused

¶7

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the S.H.O., Muvvalavanipalem P.S., Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

.....Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 73 of 2016 on the file of the S.H.O., Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, which was registered for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.

¶10

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memo of grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of S r i G.L.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of the Public Prosecutor (AP) for the Sole Respondent-State, the Court made the following ORDER:- “Post on 21/06/2016.

¶11

Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to appear before the Police concerned for the purpose of interrogation. The Police concerned are directed not to arrest the petitioner.”

¶12

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶13

//TRUE COPY//

¶14

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶15

¶16

1.The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2.The Station House Officer, Muvvalavanipalem Police Station,

¶17

Visakhapatnam. 3.Two CCs to Public Prosecutor(AP), High Court, Hyderabad (OUT) 4.One CC to Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao, Advocate(OPUC) 5.One spare copy

TKK

HIGH COURT

RE.J

DATE: 10-06-2016

ORDER

CRL.P.No. 7782 OF 2016

¶24

D I R E C T I O N.

¶25

DRAFTED BY TKK DT.14-06-2016.

HIGH COURT

RE.J

DATE: 10-06-2016

Note :- Post on 21-06-2016.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

CRL.P.No. 7782 OF 2016

¶32

D I R E C T I O N.

Pasupuleti Durgamba v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasupuleti Durgamba v. The 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

Kovasi Ganga , Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Narumalla Harinarayanana and 4 Others Vs the State of Telangana

Mohammed Shabeer Ali Khan Vs the State of Telangana

C. Gangi Reddy, Vs v. Sampurnamma

Butam Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Gangi Reddy Vs v. Sampurnamma