Allowed

Kursam Marappa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2019CRLP/3119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The case involved allegations of forgery relating to a land dispute recorded in an FIR. The Court held the dispute to be of a civil nature and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest for Crime No.80/2019 on execution of personal bond with two sureties for Rs.10,000/- each and subject to conditions to report on Sundays.

Kursam Marappa Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINSTEEN

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICP G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3119 oF 2()19 t o R T €
Yarrappa o
(, --t
Petitio
Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor by its Public Prosecutor its Public Prosecutor Public Prosecutor Prosecutor High CoCo a't

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kursam Marappa, S/o.Late Yarrappa

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor by its Public Prosecutor its Public Prosecutor Public Prosecutor Prosecutor High CoCo Hyderabad for the state of Telangana

¶11

Kursam Sayamma W/o Late Yerrappa Aged 65 years R/o Pakalagudem Vil1age, Dammapeta Mandal, Kothagudem District

¶12

R-2 impleaded as per Court Order dated: 09.O7.2019 IA No. 1 of 2079 in Cr1.P No.3119/2019

¶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 Pelition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/ accused on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.80/2019 on the file of the SHO P.S. Dammapeta, Khammam 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 MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Advocate for the Petitioner, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1 and the Court made the following.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

I,)N'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

OFIIMINAL PETITION No.3119 of 2Ol9

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This^()riminal Petition under Section 438 of Cr. P-C. is filed by the petitioner, who is Accused, seeking anticipatory bail in Crirne' No.80 of 2079 of Dammapeta Police Station, Khammam D,istrict, registered for the offences punishable under Sectr,rns 465, 467 and 506 of IPC.

¶21

The cas;e of the prosecution is that, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the police stating that she is the second wife of late Yarrappa and the petitioner/Accused is the son of late Yarrappa born through first wife, that the first wife has go: seven children and after the death of first wife, Yarrappa nrarr el the complainant and she got two children through hinr. In the presence of elders during the life time of Yarrappa, ?r-1 extent of Acs.4.0O of land in Sy.No.271/A to EE was allotted t,: tl-re complainant and the children of first wife also execute:cl thr: document confirming allocation of the said land. Hower..er, the petitioner/Accused allegedly took the said document I'or c "range of the said land in his name and erased the name ol the complainant and wrote the name of Laxmudu. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the above Crirnr-- \lo.8o of 2Ol9 for the aforesaid offences.

¶22

Heard barned counsel for the petitioner/Accused as well as the lr:arned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

¶23

¶24

2 GSD, J Crl.P.No.31l9 of2019

¶25

respondent No.1/State and Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent/complainant. Perused the material on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused contends that the 2"d respondent/ complainant has approached the police with a false complaint stating that the petitioner/ Accused 1S trying to occupy the land of the complainant by forging the document, which is totally false and incorrect. It is contended that the petitioner has not forged any document nor tried to occupy the land of the complainant and that the dispute is purely of civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is working as a Government Teacher and he is having Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds and the same do not disclose that the Sy.Nos.271/A to EE of the subject land belongs to the complainant and the allegations are levelled against the petitioner only with a malafide intention. It is contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and would cooperate with the investigation, if he is released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant opposed the relief sought in the above petition.

¶28

¶29

GSD, J Crl.P.No.3l l9 of20l9

¶30

¶31

A pt:nrsaL of the record revea-ls that the Pattadar Pass Book and t-it1e deeds possessed by the petitioner do not disclose that the Sy.Nos.271/A to EE of the subject land belongs tc the complainant and the allegations are levelled against tl-le petitioner only with a malaJide intention. Therefore, bl' taking into consideration the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and also keeping in view the ;acts and circumstances of the case, since the dispute is of civil nature, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the eetitioner/Accused by imposing some conditions.

¶32

In th,: result, the criminal petition is a-llowed and the petitioner/r\ccused is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.80 of 2Ol9 of Dammapeta Police Station, Khammam District, on his executing iL pe:sona1 bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand o el',' r',ith two 1oca1 sureties for a like su rt each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Oflicer and subject to the cond-tion that the petitioner/Accused would cooperate with the investigation Agency and wouid report before the above Policr: Station, on every Sunday between 10-00 a.m. and 5-00 p m. tiil completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, rvhichever is earlier.

¶33

As a s,ecg-LeL, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶34

shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. N.PURUSHOTHAM^REgDY I ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,, -,u l

¶36

//rRuE^coPYll

¶37

FOT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶38

to'r. ,n" Pr1 Sessi:ns Judge' Khammam "hammam^D"strict iih?t*;1";l;"trgnr::.ryfl ^J'ff li'i:;'f i:#., ;. i;; lc'""^{Public Prosecutor' High court tor tn} HYderabad^{(Ct[J ft} 5. One^{sPare cc'P1'} Avs

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:O9l07 l21t1-9l

ORDER

CRLP.No.3119 of |llDl)

¶44

s
+"
<br>

¶45

BAIL

Kursam Marappa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kursam Marappa 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

md. shafiullah khan Vs state of telangana

Mr. Bashakarla Surya Teja , Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Bashakarla Surya Teja, Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Vinesh Narsayya Vemul Vs The State of Telangana

Kalvala Chandrashekar , Chandu Vs The State of Telangana

Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana