Allowed

S.Munisekhar v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC9 Mar 2018CRLP/1748/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, on the petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., considered the facts including prior bail grant and completed investigation, and ultimately allowed the petitioner's bail application.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed. Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like sum each to satisfaction of Judl. Magistrate, Naidupeta.

S.Munisekhar Vs State of Ap. — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

[^26s0 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF IVIARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1748 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Munisekhar, S/o Uma l\rlaheswara Rao,

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

¶11

Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memo of grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No. 368 of 2017 of the Naaidupeta Police Station SPSR Nellore District in the interest of justice.

¶13

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memo of grounds filed herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Subash, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Public Prosecutor (AP) for Respondent, the Court made the following

¶14

ORDER

¶15

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1748 of 2018

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This petition is fi1ed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioner, who is A'2 in Crime No.36B of 2077 on the file of Naidupeta Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for re spondent- State.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is involved in several offences. In answer to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail in another case and that this is the only other case registered against the petitioner.

¶21

A copy of the order granting bail to the petitioner is fi1ed before this Court, which is in Cr1.M.P.No.36 1 of 20 18 in Cr.No.246 of 2017 of Gudur Rural Police Station, dated 05-03-2018 passed by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Gudur. A copy of the above order shows that though taking into consideration the fact that several crimes were registered against the petitioner, considering that investigation is completed, the Court was inclined to grant bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in this case a1so, investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.

¶23

¶24

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner-A2 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1O,OOO/_ (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a iike sum each to the satisfaction of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Naidupeta, SpSR Nellore District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this petition sha1l stand closed.

¶26

SD/- K. TATA RA ASSISTANT RE RAR

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

For ASSIS T REGISTRAR

¶29

To,

¶30

The Judicial [r/agistrate of First Class, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District

¶31

The Addl. Judicial l\4agistrate of Fist Class, Gudur, Nellore District

¶32

J. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District

¶33

The Station House Officer, Naaidupeta Police Station SPSR Nellore District

¶34

( The Station House Officer, Gudur rural Police Station, Nellore District

¶35

o. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP), High Court, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶36

1. One CC to Sri G. Subash, Advocate (OPUC)

¶37

One spare copy

Skm

I'IIGI.I COURT

't't{,J

I).\ l'1,-D:09/03/20 I u

¶43

OITDER

¶44

Cltl,P.No. 17,18 of 2018

¶45

DIITECl'ION

¶46

^qS$)
"l

S.Munisekhar v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Munisekhar v. State of Ap.

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

Kaladindi Sanyasi Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karakula Gangaprasad or Prasad Vs State of Ap.

Kodi Ajay Kumar , Pandu and another Vs State of Ap.

M.B.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Ap.

Chandra Shekar Vs State of Telangana

Vechalapu.Gopi Vs the State of A.P.