Allowed

K. Narsimhulu Naidu v. T. Rajeswari

Telangana HC12 Mar 2018CRLP/2290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. The court noted a family dispute and compromise. Petitioners were directed to surrender within 15 days and execute a bond with sureties, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioners directed to surrender within 15 days and execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount.

K. Narsimhulu Naidu Vs T. Rajeswari — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

IMONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN :PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2290 of 20'18

¶5

B etrveen:

¶6

l. Kavuturi Narasirnhulu Naitlu, S/g<r. I(irvaturi Narasin.rhulu^(A l) 2. Kavuturi Rama Chandra Naiclu, S/o. Venkataiah Naidu (A2)

¶7

Kavuturi Gajendra, S/o. Kavutur Narasirnhulu (A3)

¶8

Petitioners (Accused 1 to 3 in Cr.No.1 8112017 of Obulavarripalli P.S.)

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

Smt. Tellapati Ra.jeswari, W/o. Sambhasiva Naidu, Occ:^Housewife, Rlo.2-79-A, Naddimpalli, Chinna Oram Padu, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶12

Respondents/Defacto Complainants

¶13

Petition unrler Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the^{circurnstances stated} in the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be^pleascd to enlarge^the Petitioners/Accused No. I to 3 on bail in the event of lheir^{amestpursuant} to the FIRⁱⁿ Crime No. l8l of²⁰¹⁷ of Obulavaripalli^{Police Station, I(adapaDistrict, in the interest} ofjustice.

¶14

The Petition corning on lbr lrearing, upon^perusing the Petition^{aud the grounds} filed therein and upon hearing the argurtreltts of^{Sri Mahcswara Rao Kuncheam,} Advocate lor the Petitioners and olthe Public Prosecutor^(AP) lbr thc^{Rcspolidellt No.l,} ths Court rnade tlie fbllorving

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

rlt

¶17

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2290 OF 2018

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This petition is filed, under Section 438 of the Code of 'Criminal Proceduie, L973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 181 of 2Ol7 of Obulavaripalli Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

V 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits i that the dispute was between close relatives and that subsequently, there was a compromise between the parties. Learned counsel also filed an affidavit of the de facto complainant(ating so.

¶22

Hence, considering the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Obulavaripalli Police Station, Kadapa District, within 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their e>lecuting each a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (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 shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. as under:

¶23

(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when req u ired .

n../.

1-'

(ii) 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;

¶28

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. Pending

¶30

miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed in consequence,

¶31

sl)/--^{v. DIWAKAI{} GISTRAR ASSISTAN /t) t^ ) // TRUE COPY // tbT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶32

¶33

I The SI-lO, Obulavaripalli Polico Stirtion, Kaclapa District. 2 Two CCs to the Public Prosccutrrr^(AI')), High Couri, Hyd(OUT) J 'One CC to Sri Maheswara Rao I(unclieant, Advocate(OPUC) 4 One spare copy.

SAH

IIIGII COURT

TR.'

DATEI): l2-03-20ltl

ORDER

cRL.P.NO. 2290^()F 2018

¶40

AN'TICIPATORY I}.\II,

¶41

. ffi
#t
! .L,, l+'"

K. Narsimhulu Naidu v. T. Rajeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Narsimhulu Naidu v. T. Rajeswari

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

S.Munisekhar Vs State of Ap.

M.B.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Ap.

Chandra Shekar Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Nizamuddin Taj Vs State of Ap.

Boina.Prasad Vs State of Ap.

Narsing Venkateshwarlu and another Vs State of Telangana