Allowed

M.Dharma Reddy v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC1 Mar 2018CRLP/1926/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to petitioners accused in a criminal case, permitting surrender and release on personal bond and sureties after the complainant expressed willingness to compromise.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners directed to surrender within 15 days and release on bail upon executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties.

M.Dharma Reddy Vs State of Ap. — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

l26eo 1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTtrEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: L926OF. 2OLA

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Dharma Reddy S/o M. Subba Reddy

¶8

B.Ravichandra S/o Venkataramana

¶9

....Petitioner/Accused No. 2 & 5

¶10

AND

¶11

The State ofAndhra Pradesh rep by its Pubiic Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of A.P.

¶12

... Respondent / Complainaut

¶13

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Station House Oflicer, K.V. Palli Police Station, Chittoor District to release the petitioners/ accused No.2 & 5 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 81/2017 of K.V. Palli Police Station, Chittoor District;

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit hled in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER

¶15

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 926 of 2018

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, who are A2 and A5 in Crime No.B1 of 2017 of K.V,Palli Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,506 read with Section 34 lPC.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶20

The counsel for petitioners submits that the de-facto - complainant, in fact, is willing to compromise the matter.d he also filed the affidavit of the de-facto complainant, wherein he stated that due to misunderstandings, he filed the complaint

¶21

Hence, considering the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioners/A2 and A5 are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, K.V.Palli Police Station, Chittoor District, withln 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,0001 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer. Further, on such release, the petitioners/A2 and A5 shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., as under:

¶23

TR,J Crl.P. No.1926 of 2018

¶24

¶25

The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶26

The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or^promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶27

The^petitioners shall not leave lndia without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

Miscellaneous applications, if any^pending in this criminal^petition,

¶29

shall stand closed

¶30

//TRUE^coPYI I

¶31

SD/- K. TA'I'A^RAO ASSISTANT^R ISTRAR ) /,^ -

¶32

FoT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶33

To, 1 . The Station^{HouseOfficer, K.V' Palli PoliceStation' Chittoor District} 2 . O"" CC to^{D PURNACHANDRA REDDYAdvocateIOPUC]} . TWo CC,s^{to Public Prosecutor, High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad} (our)

¶34

One spare coPY

Avs

HIGH^COURT

TRJ

DATED;^O1'O3'2O18

ORDER

CRLP^{No. rs26 0F 2018}

¶41

*s.,
s
\ \ i

¶42

BAlL

M.Dharma Reddy v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dharma Reddy 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

Vimal , Vijaynathan Nirmal Vs The State of Telangana

N.Veera Babu Vs The State of A.P

Panyam Pedda Pullamma Vs The State of Ap.

Baliram Rathod Vs The State

Punam Satyanarayana Dora, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Dilip Maithy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh