Dismissed

Thatiparthi Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC4 Dec 2017CRLP/6010/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C filed by the de-facto complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to A.13. The court noted lack of evidence regarding violations of bail conditions and noted that the accused had not done anything to justify cancellation. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Thatiparthi Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6010 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Criminal Petition, under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/ de-facto complainant, seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent/A.13 by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3843 of 2017 on 27.06.2017.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ de-facto complainant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/A.13 and perused the record.

¶5

Learned counsel for the de-facto complainant would submit that A.13 conspired and abetted A.1 to A.12 to commit the offences involved in Crime No.34 of 2017 on the file of Veldurthy Police Station, Guntur district. There were specific and grave allegations against A.13; the de-facto complainant is apprehending attack by A.13; the implead petition got filed by the petitioner and another vide Crl.M.P. (SR) No.20694 of 2017 was not considered by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to A.13 on 27.06.2017 and ultimately prayed to allow the Petition by granting the aforesaid relief.

¶6

The de-facto complainant has relied only on the paper cuttings; the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court about specific violations of conditions mentioned in impugned order dated 27.06.2017 passed in Criminal Petition No.3843 of 2017.

¶7

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A.13 has not violated any condition of bail stipulated in the impugned order and indulged in any sort of activities as alleged by the de-facto complainant.

¶8

¶9

At this stage it is relevant to state that while granting bail to A.13 in Criminal Petition 3843 of 2017 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 27.06.2017, this Court has discussed the entire material on record and gave elaborate reasons in allowing the bail application of A.13. Under these circumstances, there is no justifiable reason to allow the instant Petition.

¶10

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶11

_____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶12

Date: 04.12.2017. Dsh

¶13

¶14

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶15

169

¶16

07122017

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6010 OF 2017

¶18

Date. 04.12.2017

¶19

DSH

Thatiparthi Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thatiparthi Srinivasa Reddy, Guntur v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Another

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

Shaik Raju Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp

Seelam Prabhudas, West Godavari Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

B.S.Sayeed, Vs Malayadri Manohar Rao, , M. Bujjaiah, and Another

Pasupula Sangaiah Vs the State of A.P.

Yalala Sri Ram Reddy, Hyd Vs the State of Ts, Rep. by P.P.

Smt. Dyapa Susheela, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs Meddelapati Krishnaiah and 6 Others