Disposed

M. Premadass v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2018CRLP/3419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order directing Non-Bailable Warrants against them in a Section 306 IPC trial. The Court, referring to prior cooperation and a pre-existing restraint order against arrest, ordered the lower court to recall the warrants upon application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned Magistrate to recall the N.B.W. issued against the petitioners upon receipt of an application for recall.

M. Premadass Vs State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Challenging the docket order dated 23-1-2018 in P.R.C.No.01 of 2018 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, directing issue of N.B.W. against A.1 to A.3 while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., this Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶4

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in Crl.M.P.No.11217 of 2016, this Court while directing Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation, ordered that petitioners shall not be arrested till the investigation was completed and Charge Sheet was filed. Subsequently, Charge Sheet was filed and taking cognizance of the same, Committal Court straightaway issued N.B.W.against A.1 to A.3.

¶5

Learned counsel would further submit that during the course of investigation, petitioners have cooperated with Investigating Agency and in that view of the matter and in view of the decision reported in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS (¹ ), the Committal Court ought not to have issued N.B.W.at the very first instance. He would submit that petitioners are ready to appear before the learned Magistrate and requested that N.B.W. issued against them may be ordered to be recalled.

¶6

Perused the order in Crl.M.P.No.11217 of 2016 dated 2^nd August, 2016 and also the impugned docket order. Petitioners/A.1 to A.3 are directed to appear before the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, on or before 29^th March, 2018 and move an application for recall of N.B.W. in which case, the said court shall recall N.B.W. issued against them.

¶7

1 (2007) 12 SCC 1

¶8

¶9

This Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶10

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

¶11

stand closed.

¶12

_______________________________ JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶13

Dated 20^th March, 2018.

¶14

Note: Issue C.C. today. BO Dvs

¶15

¶16

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3419 of 2018

¶18

Dated 20^th March, 2018

¶19

Note:

¶20

Issue C.C. today. BO Dvs

M. Premadass v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Premadass v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Shiva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mercy Ruth .J Vs R.S.Manjunath

T.S.Surender Babu Vs State of Ap.

Shonti Shiva Kumar, Vs Shonti Permeela , Jhansi

Karru Gopaiah, Vs the State of A.P

N. Muddukrishna Naidu Vs the State of Ap