Partly allowed

Poojari muralikrishna v. The State of telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2018CRLP/1525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to cancel bail granted to accused Kamma Srinivas as there were no changed circumstances. Conversely, the Court granted interim bail for two months to Poojari Ir/uralikrishna due to a certified medical ailment requiring rest, subject to a personal bond. The Court allowed the criminal petitions accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition to cancel bail dismissed; Bail petition for A5 allowed with interim bail for two months on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.

Poojari muralikrishna Vs The State of telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH IUONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF T/ARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN : PRESENT:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶3

CRLP .Nos. 1525 o{ 2018 and 5096 of 2017

¶4

Crl.P.No. 1525 of 2018 :-

¶5

Between:-

¶6

Poojari lr/uralikrishna, S/o. P. Sryanarayana

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

AND

¶9

State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶10

RespondenUComplainant

¶11

Petition filed under Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No. 39 of 2014, on the file of the learned [v]etropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Thakur Chetan Srngh, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecuto(TS) on behalf of Responden! State,

¶13

CRL.P.No. 5096 of 2017 :-

¶14

Between:-

¶15

lntelligence Offacer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub-Zone, Rep. by High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶16

. . . Petitioner/Respo nd e nt-Co m^p la in in g AND

¶17

Kamma Srinivas, S/o. Someshwar Rao, R/o. Flat NO. 42143, Qajula^{Ramaram, Qutubullahpur, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana}

¶18

..... RespondenVPetitioner-Accused No.4.

¶19

Petition filed under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 37 of NDPS Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the Bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1388 of 2017 in SC.No. 39 of 2014 daled 15-4-2017 by learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to the respondenUaccused No.4 herein in the interest of justice

¶20

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, Advocate & Special Public Prosecutor for NCB on behalf of petitioner the Court made the following COMMON ORDER :-

¶21

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITON Nos.1525 OF 2018 AND 5096 OF 20L7

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

Crl.P.No.1525 of 2018 is filed, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioner, u,ho is A5, on bail in Cr1.M.P.No.52OO of 2077 in S.C.No.39 of 2014, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections B(b) rlw 2O(cl,28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. While, Cr1.P.No.5096 of 2077 is filed for canceliation of the bail, that r.r''as granted to A4, by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, by virtue of the orders in Cr1.M.P.No.13BB of 2Ol7 tn S.C.No.39 of 2074.

¶25

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶26

Firstly, Cr1.P.No.5096 of 2Ol7 can be ciealt with. A perusal of the impugned order would show that, though the court .{'as aware of the fact that the commercial quantity of contraband was involved, it took into consideration the fact that the father of the petitioner was suffering from serious cardiac ailments, high sugar and the doctor suggested that the patient should be kept on the care of his family members and that the accused is only son of the father. The order also reflects that earlier interim bail was granted to A4 and later

,t'

on, bail was granted by virtue of the impugned orders. The public prosecutor is not successful in making out any case for cancellation of bail, as there are no changed circumstances, subsequent to the grant of bail to A4. Hence, in view of the above, Crl.P.No.5O96 of 2Ol7 has to be dismissed.

¶31

With regard to the seeking of bail by A5 in Crl.P.No.1525 of 20i8, the order granting bail to A4 u.ould reflect that it was observed that this petitioner u,as also standing on the same footing. But, however, the^petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner 1S suffering from an ailment in his left lor,,"er limb and that he underwent surgery and that he needs rest for two months. He also places a certificate issued by one doctor by Y.Sandeep Reddy in that regard, which shows that he was advised rest for two months.

¶32

Hence, considering the above, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to A5, for a period of tu,o months i.e., from 07.03.20 1B to 05.05.2018.

¶33

Accordingly, Cri.P.No.1525 of 2018 is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on interim bail for a period of tu,o months i.e., from 06.03.20i8 to 04.O5.2018, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,0OO/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar. After completion of the above said period, the petitioner shall surrender himself before the

¶34

.1frt,."'-

¶35

Superintendent, Cherlapalli Jail, on 04.05.201g before 05:00 PM.

¶36

6 In the result, Crl.p.No.5O96 of 2Ol7 is dismissed and

¶37

Crl.P.No.1525 of 201g is allowed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand clo sed.

¶38

sd/- D.RAJEND ASSISTANT i/TRUE COPY// r!

¶39

for ASS REGISTRAR

¶40

¶41

1.The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

¶42

2.The lntelligence Officer, NCB, Hyderabad Sub Zone, Hyderabad.

¶43

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶44

4.Two CCs to Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhaley, Special P for NCB Cases, High Court at Hyd(OUT)

¶45

5.One CC to Sri Anil Narsikar, Advocate(OPUC)

6.One spare copy.

TKK

HIGII COURT

1'R..'

D1.'05-03-2018.

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.Nos. 1525 ot 2018 and 5096 of2017

¶53

' .fn,r
S* .s'
''f' $'"
$

¶54

RELIASE THE PETITIONER ON IIAIL IN CRL.P.No.l525 of 2018.

Poojari muralikrishna v. The State of telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poojari muralikrishna v. The State of telangana

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

Syed hussain and another Vs state of telangana

Tenugu Raju Vs the State of Telangana

Madasu Naga Durga Prasad Vs State of A.P.

Mokkala Rama Krishna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandula Nagarjuna Vs State of Telangana

Sreenu Vs State of Ap.