Allowed

Damolla Narshimha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jul 2019CRLP/3509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to petitioner in murder case under IPC 302. Petitioner was in judicial custody accused of killing deceased after theft. Court granted bail on personal bond with two sureties requiring appearance before investigating agency and court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, appearing before investigating agency every Tuesday and Saturday.

Damolla Narshimha Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

lilGH COL IIT FOR THII S'l'A'tlr OF ]'hL,\C.\A .\t'HYI)Elt.-\8.\t)

¶2

\I()Nt).\'. ]-HF. I\'F.\1 ' SEC ONI) I).\'^()t. .il.,I.\1'\'O'I'FIOI.'S.\ND .\D NINI.,TI:E\

I -llsri I

:PRI.,SI:'I:

.T}IE H0}-''BLI., JT.STIC[, (; SI{I I)E'I

¶7

(-ltllll.\L PI.TITION \O: 3509 OF 2019

¶8

Bctl e crr:

¶9

Damolla Narshimha, S/o. Kanakappa, Aged 3 8 years, Occ: Labour, fuo. Footh at Gowliguda Chanran. Af2algunj, I{yderabad. Native of Bommanpadu (village), Narayanpet (Mandal) of Old Mahboob Nagar District, Kodangal District. Telangana State.

¶10

... Petitioner/Al

¶11

AND

¶12

l'hc State ol-felangana. Represented by Public Prosecutor. FJigh Coult ofTclangana. At I-l1,dcrabad.

¶13

...,Respondent

¶14

Petition under Scctior.rs 437 & 439 of Clr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in thc affidavit liled in support ol-the Criminal Pctition. the Iligh Court mal be pleased to enlarge thc Petitioner on bail in connection u'ith FIR. No. 137/19 on thc tlle olPS Afzalgunj. Ilvderabad

¶15

The petition conring on fbr hearing. upon perusing the Petition and the aflidavit filed in su1.r1.ror'1 thcrcoiand upon hearing the argunrents of M/S.R.,.lA(jOPALLAV,\N TAYI Adrocatc lirr tlre Petitioner and ADDI-.P[-TRLIC I'ROSE(IU'I'OII ( lG). 1'ol the Rcspondent. thc Courl nradc- the Iollori ing.

¶16

oIU)Ett

¶17

E|ON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

CITIIvIINAL PETITION No.35O9 of 2Ol9

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petilioner/A.1 has filed the present Criminal Petition uncler Sections 437 and 439 Cr. P. C. seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No.137 of 2079 of Afzalgunj Police Station, Hvderrbad, Hyderabad District, registered for the offence punish:tble under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

The car;e of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 0B7Olt.05.2019, the petitioner/A. 1 along with A.2 consumed liquor and slept on the footpath at Gowliguda Chaman ano in the mid-night the deceased had stolen cash from A.1 anrl A.2, Iater A. 1 and A.2 questioned the deceased about the t.re t and assaulted him u.ith hands, legs and sticks, resultinq in his death. Basing on the complaint lodged by the defac,o complainant, who is the r,l'ife of the deceased, the police rr:gistered FIR No.137 of 2Ol9 for the aforesaid offen ce.

¶22

Learne,l counsel for the petitioner/A.1 contends that the petitioner rs innocent of the offences alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the above crime. It is also contended th:Lt the petitioner and A.2 slept on the footpath only and that the petitioner did not have an1, maiafide intention in committing the offence. It is also contended that the petitiorre r *'as arrested onlv basing on the confessional

¶23

' ,r r "8lfdr'rro,n statement of witnesses, but there is no material evidence available on record against him 1n committing the offence intentionally. It is also contended that the petitioner is in judiciai custody since 13.05.2019. It is further contended that entire investigation is completed, except filing of charge sheet and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, including assisting the investigating agency in the event of his release on bail in the above crime.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A. 1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶26

As seen from the Remand Case Diary, it appears that the petitioner/A. 1 and A.2 had jointly consumed liquor and slept on the footpath at Gorvliguda Chaman, later some other persons, including the deceased joined there and during the mid-night, the deceased had stolen a cash of Rs.300/- from the drawer pocket of the petitioner and Rs.130/- from the pant pocket of A.2, which was seen by the other witness, that when the petitioner and A.2 questioned the deceased about the theft of cash from them and assaulted him with hands, iegs and sticks indiscriminately, the deceased succumbed to the said multiple injuries.

¶27

Therefore, looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/A.1 and.. since material evidence has

¶28

GSD, J Crl.P.No.l509 ol'1019 already been c,>llected by the Investigating Agency and since there is no i-rtention on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence irnrl as the petitioner/A. 1 is in^judicial custodv since 13.05.2019, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A. I on certain terms and conditions.

¶29

AccordingJy, this Criminal Petition is allos'ed and the petitioner/A. 1 shall be released on bail on the follou,ing terms and conditions

¶30

(i) on the petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two locaL sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Hyderzrbad District;

¶31

(ii) that the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar type o1' activities, in future;

¶32

(iii) that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Agency on every Tuesda.,' and Saturday betr"een 10.00 a.m. and 6.OO p.m. til1 completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet;

¶33

(iu) that the petitioner shall not intimidate or give threat to the complainant or any of her familv members during the period of trial;

¶34

(") that the petitioner shali appear before the Court conr:errred personally on each date of hearing till con,:lusion of tria1.

¶35

As a s;ec1ue1, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶36

shali stand <:losed.

¶37

SD/. N.PURUSHOTHAM REUD'/ ASSISTAN REGISTRAR ,'i l ltt h. C OP.// For ASSIST {*,. l lt \I{

¶38

1' o l.^'[he Metropo]itan iessions Judge. Hiderabad

¶39

Thc- lt Additional^,-'hief Metlopolitan Magistrate. Hvderabad

¶40

Thc Superintenrlcrrt.⁽ cnlrirl Jail. Chanchalquda. I Il,derabad

¶41

The Station I loLrsc⁽ )r'licer. Alzalgun^j Police Sta(ion. Hr clerabacl

¶42

One CC to \1/S I{..1. (;OPAt.l..\VAN TAYI Advocare fOPl.iCl

¶43

T\o CCs PL-lllt.l( 1'ltOSECLi IOR (TC;). HiSh Court at Hyderabnd (OL. I )

¶44

One spare copr

lilGH⁽ Otrli.T

(;SD..I

DATED:22.7.2019

cltL.P.No.3509 0F 20 l9

¶49

I}AIL

¶50

i ") s
j.
+'
:i !-

Damolla Narshimha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damolla Narshimha 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

Ch.Raghavendra, and another Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. K. Laxmi Narayana Vs State of Telangana

Syed Irfan Sulaiman Vs The State of Telangana

Dasari RamaKrishna Vs The State of Telangana

Swapnil Prajapati Vs The State of Telangana

Swapnil Prajapati Vs The State of Telangana