Allowed

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2019CRLP/3088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed for anticipatory bail regarding offences u/s 386, 120B, 506 IPC in a land dispute case. The court allowed the petition, granting bail pending investigation subject to conditions of personal bond, sureties, and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting every alternate day and cooperating with investigation.

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi Vs The State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

:PRESENT:

[31s8 I

(oR T'J F .
!(,
t

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3088 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Goparaju Ravi Kumar@Ravi @ Kojjaw Ravi, S/o. Vithal Rao,

¶10

....Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶11

AND

¶12

The State ofTelangana, though the Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta Police Station, Rachakonda District, rep.by the Public Prosecutor for the State of,Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶13

....Respondent/Complainant

¶14

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 enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 5112019 dated. 22.03.2019 of Yadagirigutta P.S. Yadagirigutta, Rachakonda District

¶15

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.CH.VENKAT RAMAN Advocate for the Petitioner and of the ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

{__

¶18

']-HE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶19

¶20

!liminal^{Petition No.3O88of 2019}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the^{petitioner/A.5,} for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.51 of 2019 of Yadagirigutta Pclice Station, Rachakonda Police Com missionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 1208 & 506 of LP.C.

¶23

2, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.5, learned Additional Publir: Prosecutor representing the respondent-litate and perused the record.

¶24

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.20L9, at about 07:00 AN4, the de-facto complainant Narsimhulu lodged a report with the lolice that he and his family members are having agricultural lands in an extent of Acs,7,04^guntas at the outskirts of Mallapur Village. In the year 2012, the petitioner/A.5 met hlm and told that Gangste. Nayeem wants his lands and it is Bhai Sahab order. Ten days later, Pasham Srinu, S.Srinivas, Mallikarjun, S.Niloufer, K.Ravi Kumar, Lingala Satheesh, K.Ramu and M.Santhosh came to his house at Mallapur and threatened him and his family members with dire consequences by saying that they will kill them if they do not obey their orders. The said persons hatched a plan by keeping the de-facto complainant under threat of death, took them to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Yadagirigutta, and forcibly got registered his lands in the name of S.Srinivas and Mallikarjuna, vide document No.B34l2012 and 835/20L2, on 13.01.2012.

¶25

¶26

:-:-l--.8^-

¶27

GSD, J Crl.P.No,3088 of20l9

¶28

¶29

Subsequently, as per thelr plan, S.Srinivas and Mallikarjuna registered the said land in the name of S.Niloufer and Pasham Srinu, vide document No.325 of 2015, dated 07.01.2015. Hence, the defacto complainant requested the police to take action against the cu lprit(s).

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.5 would submit that the petitioner/A.5 is an innocent person and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner/A.5 is in no way connected with the alleged land transaction at any point of time. The de-facto complainant, with a mala fide intention, lodged the subject report with the police against the petitioner/A.5. The petitioner/A.5 never obtained any property from the de-facto complainant and he is not a signatory to any document, as alleged. A.2 in this crime has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order, dated 03.06.2019, passed in Criminal Petition No.2342 of 2019. Entire investigation is completed. The petitioner/A.5 is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and is having landed property and therefore, the question of his absconding and fleeing away from justice would not arise and ultimately prayed to allow the application.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail^petition stating that the^{petitioner/A.5} is one of the members in the^gangster Nayeem's criminal^{gang. The} petitioner/A.5 is not entitled for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and ultimately^prayed to dismiss the application.

¶32

The petitioner/A.S has filed an memo before this Court stating that he is involved in three more criminal cases apart from^the subject crime and that in aH(f;e cases, the^{petitioner/A.5has already}

¶33

GSD, J Crl.I'.No.3088 of20l9

¶34

¶35

¶36

been enlarged on bail. Looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/A.5 and considering the fact that A.2 in this crime was alreedy enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order, dated 03.06.2019,^pa:;sed in Criminal Petition No.2342 of 2019, this Court deems it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/A.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., on some conditions.

¶37

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/A.s is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.51 of 2019 of Yadagirigutta Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House OfTicer, Yadagirigutta Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, subject to condition that the petitioner/A.5 shall cooperate with the investigation and shall report before the said Police Station, on every alternative day between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM till completion of investigation or filing of charge sheet, whichever is ea rlier.

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

-.,

¶40

sdl -:T.I{AGESH ASSI ISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

vi ./

¶43

FOT ASSISTANI^REGISTRAR

¶44

To 1. The Station^{Httuse ()fficer, Yadagirigutta Police Station'RachakondaDi;trict} i. ifr. V^{Additional District& SessionsJudge'AT Bhorgir'} i. O." CC,"^{SRI. CH VENKATRAMAN Advocate[OPUC]} 4-TwoCCsPUBLICpr<osecuron(TG),HighCourtatHyderabad(or-T) 5. One^{sPare coPY}

HIGH COtrIlT

(;SD.J

DATED: 03.07.2019

CRL.P.NO.3088 otr i:01 9

¶49

ANTICIPATORY IIA.IL,

¶50

T5i
L
F
.i,r +
O
N
l!
+"

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goparaju Ravi Kumar,RaviKojjaw Ravi v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt.Gai Shobha Rani Vs The Union of India

Smt. Gai Shobha Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Shahabuddin, Vs The State of Telangana.

Pinninti Suresh Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Peddalingannagari Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

R. Janakiram and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another