Disposed

Sammangi Apparao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jun 2016CRLRC/1513/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision aimed at setting aside a notice for forfeiture of a good behaviour bond due to alleged subsequent offence. The High Court quashed the notice, directing the authority to conduct an enquiry as per Cr.P.C. procedure before deciding on forfeiture.

What did the court decide?

The notice is set aside and authority directed to conduct an enquiry. Consequential proceedings set aside.

Sammangi Apparao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1513 of 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the notice, dated 25.04.2016, for forfeiture of bond for good behaviour in M.C.No.69/2016, dated 29.02.2016, issued by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram Urban.

¶4

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner executed a bond for good behaviour for a period of six (6) months before the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 29.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/, invoking provisions under Section 110 Cr.P.C., vide proceedings in M.C.No.69/2016, dated 29.02.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner was involved in similar crime during the pendency of the bond. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram Urban, has issued notice, dated 25.04.2016, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,000/as agreed upon by him or show cause as to why he should not be adjudged for imprisonment until such bond period expires, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the notice. Hence, the present revision is filed.

¶5

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never executed any bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for good behaviour before the learned Magistrate and no proceedings were initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and no order was passed under Section 111 Cr.P.C., and no summons or warrants were issued requiring the petitioner to appear as contemplated under Section 113 Cr.P.C. and no enquiry was conducted as to the truth or otherwise of the information received as contemplated under Section 116 Cr.P.C., and no final order was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner has already submitted reply, dated 29.02.2016, as per the directions

¶7

issued in the notice, dated 29.02.2016.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the following direction:

¶9

“The notice under revision is set aside and the authority concerned is directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the alleged offence committed by the petitioner. If it is found in the enquiry that the petitioner committed any offence subsequent to the execution of the bond alleged to have been executed by him, the authorities concerned are at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The consequential proceedings, if any, are also set aside.”

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this revision shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶12

Date: 16^th June, 2016.

¶13

Sammangi Apparao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sammangi Apparao v. 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

T.Surender and Anr. Vs State of A.P.

Bijay Kumar Udjogi, Vs The State of A.P.

Appala Subrahmanyam Vs The State of Ap.

Balpureddy , Bhimireddy Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Anwarullah Vs State of A.P