Dismissed

D.Lakshmaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Mar 2018CRLP/2295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused in a case involving sections 147, 148, 324, and 307 IPC. The court held that the petitioner was specifically named in the complaint and denied bail, directing the accused to surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; directed to surrender for regular bail; criminal petition dismissed.

D.Lakshmaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2295 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused No.4, in Crime No.32 of 2018 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District. The offences alleged are under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 R/w.149 of I.P.C.

¶5

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

¶6

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, went and attacked the victim.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Nos.9 and 10, who are the sons of accused No.4, were falsely implicated in this case though their names do not find place in the complaint, as such the petitioner is also falsely implicated in this case for the alleged offences.

¶8

But, this Court is not impressed with the said submission, as there is specific mention of the name of the petitioner in the complaint.

¶9

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail, on the ground that the injured is still undergoing treatment in K.I.M.S. Hospital, Hyderabad.

¶10

Hence, in the above circumstances and considering the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, appreciating the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that other accused in this case were already enlarged on bail. However, the

¶11

¶12

petitioner/accused No.4 is at liberty to surrender the before the lower Court having jurisdiction and obtain regular bail. The lower Court shall dispose of the bail application expeditiously, on merits, preferably on the same day, subject to pressure of other work.

¶13

Accordingly, with the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶14

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶15

______________________ T. RAJANI, J Date: 02.03.2018. Dsh

¶16

¶17

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶18

¶19

06032018

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2295 OF 2018

¶21

Date. 02.03.2018

¶22

DSH

D.Lakshmaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Lakshmaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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

M.Dharma Reddy Vs State of Ap.

Dilip Maithy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mikkili Mariyamma Vs State of Ap.

Valaparla Nageshwar Rao Vs State of Ap.

Abdul Khayyum Vs the State of Telangana