Allowed

S.Sagar v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jul 2019CRLP/3793/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted anticipatory bail to accused No. 8, directing his surrender within 15 days to the police station to be released on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to periodic attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days; upon surrender, to be released on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for like sum, attending SHO on every Sunday.

S.Sagar Vs the State of Telangana — Corruption | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

¶4

1
5
r
l"

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3793 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.SAGAR, S/o Lingam,

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No. 8

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangala Hyderabad.

¶12

Respondent

¶13

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.8 on ANTICIPATORY BAIL in the event of arrest in connection with FIR 7112019 of PS, Kalapathar, Hyderabad City under Sections 498 (A), 306, R/w 34 of IPC

¶14

Counselfor Petitioner: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARA RAO

¶15

Counsel for Respondent: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

ORDER

¶17

,TTIE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

s^{RIMINAL PETITION No.3793 OF 2019}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.CJ, is fi1ed by the petitioner/Acc rsed No.8 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.71 of 2019 of Kalapathar Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 306 read with 34 I.P.C.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.8 and the learnecl Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, Perused the record.

¶22

The de facto complainant, who is father of the deceased Dadika Lavan ya @ Tulasi, lodged a complaint stating that her daughter marriage with accused No. 1 was performed about 14 years ago; thzrt after the marriage the couple stayed at Mochi Colony and doing private^job; that as the deceased is issueless, accused No. 1 and his family members started harassing the deceased phys.cally and mentaliy stating that deceased is a barren lady an decideC to perform second marriage to accused No.1; that the deceased t:lerated the same but day-today increase of cruelty, the deceased has narrated the incident to her parents, who in turn held panchayats and elders advised the accused to live happy with the deceased, but there is no change in the attitude of the accused; that ten (10) days prior to the date of incident, accused No.l winded up the: household articles and sent the deceased to her native place and since then accused No.l is not talking with her

¶23

and all the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide; that on 25.04.2019 at about 14:00 hours, the deceased consumed turpentine oil and committed suicide and while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint to take necessary action against the accused.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.8 would submit that the petitioner is a resident of Karimnagar District whereas the alleged incident took place at Hyderabad; that the petitioner is no way concerned wit-h the present crime; that the petitioner is suffering from heart problem and regular medical check-up is necessary; that the entire investigation is completed in this case; that the other accused were arrested and released on baii and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of the bail to the petitioner/ accused No.8.

¶26

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence alleged, the petitioner/ accused No.8 can be granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C on some conditions.

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner/ accused No.S is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Kalapathar Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the Station House Officer, Kalapathar Police Station, Hyderabad Commissionerate, shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,0O0/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with

¶28

two sureties frr a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer. On such release, the petitioner/Accused No.8 shall attr:nd before the said Station House Officer on every Sunday betwr:en 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM till completion of investigation .rnd shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 438 (2t Cr.P.C and co-operate with the Investigation Officer in concluding investigation.

¶29

Accordingll', the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶30

Miscella:reous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

I\Di. K.SAILESHI ASSIS T l5T,t.llR

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

FOT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶35

To,

¶36

'1 . The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate^{for Excise Cases at} NamaPllY,^HYderabad

¶37

The Siation^{Flouse Officer, P.S. Kalapathar, Hyderabad'}

¶38

i. ON" CC tO SRI^{NAIMAVARAPURAJESWARARAO AdVOCAIE} loPUCl

¶39

A. iwo CCs to^{F']UBLICPROSECUTOR, High Courl at Hyderabad'} lourl

¶40

One SPare^CoPY

)

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:1710712019

ORDER

CRLP.No.3793^{of 2019}

¶48

BAIL

¶49

r a T h s
.J i:
o
! 1 0lu r') t_ <br>rl .}. il
--i {"
]
E +

S.Sagar v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sagar v. the 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

Nayakoti Rajashekar Vs The State of Telangana

Salma Bee Vs The state of Telengana

K. Rakesh Reddy Vs The State of Telanagana

Emmadi Soma Naraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Srinivas Rao, Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Konamouni Khaseem , Kumar Vs The State of Telangana