Allowed

Kandula Nagarjuna v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2018CRLP/2543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a bail petition filed by an accused charged with offences under IPC Sections 376 and 366 and POCSO Section 6. The court opined it was a fit case to grant bail due to partial material completion and consent elements, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.

Kandula Nagarjuna Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I\4ONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN : PRESENT :

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶3

CRLP.No. 2543o1 2018

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Kandula Nagarjuna, S/o. L. Yellaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ : Car Driver, R/o. Sirisangandla Village, lMandal : Peddavoora, Nalgonda District.

¶6

PetitioneriAccused

¶7

AND

¶8

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

¶9

RespondenUComplainant

¶10

Petition filed under Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C. praying that in the

¶11

circumstances stated in the Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be

¶12

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 45 of 2018, dated 21-01-2018,

¶13

of on the file of P.S. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of grounds

¶15

filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ir/.A.K. [,4ukheed,

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecuto(Ts) on behalf of Respondent-

¶17

State, the Court made the following ORDER :-

¶18

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITON No.2543 OF 2018

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This petition is filed, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is sole accused, on bail in Crime No.45 of 2O18, on the file of Jubileehills Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 of IPC and Section 5 r/v', 6 of POCSO Act.

¶22

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Proseclltor appearing for the respondent

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner and the V. victim girl *rt fe\ in love and the petitioner promised to marry her and had sex with her and later, they both stayed together for two weeks, after which the petitioner was brought to the vi1lage. Hence, from the above facts, it appears that there is an element of consent on the part of the victim girl. The counsel submits that he has been in jail, since 14.O2.2O1a and that the material part of the investigation is completed. The public prosecutor does not refute the said submission.

¶24

Hence, considering the above, this Court opines that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on conclition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each

-t'

^\0,

to the satisfaction of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶30

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if ar_ry per_rding, shall stand closed.

¶31

sd/- r(.s 1\l Ll'lS I 'tRAR ASSIS'TA 1'ITE

¶32

//TRUE COPY'

¶33

¶34

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶35

¶36

'1 .The I Additional l,4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2.The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Nampally,^Hyderabad.

¶37

3.The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hllls Police Station, Hyderabad. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. 5.Two CCs to lhe Public Prosecuto(TS), High Court at Hyd.(OUT)

¶38

6.One CC to Sri Ivl.A.K. tr,4ukheed, Advocates(OPUC) 7.One spare copy.

TKK

IIIGH COI,R'I

f It..t

t)'f.05-03-20 I 8.

I}AII, OIiDI.]It

.s$''
I

CRL.P.\o. 25-13 ol 20I tl

¶46

RELEASE'I'I IE PETITIONER ON BAII-,

Kandula Nagarjuna v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula Nagarjuna v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

Sreenu Vs State of Ap.

Suksen Mandal Vs State of Ap.