Dismissed

Mir Jabbar Ali v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC31 Oct 2019CRLP/6537/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed under CrPC 1973 by accused sought to be charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court refused bail but directed that regular bail applications would be considered upon surrender within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; accused directed to surrender within fifteen days to seek regular bail.

Mir Jabbar Ali Vs The State Of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6537 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.213 of 2019 of P.S. Abids, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record.

¶6

In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that on 26.08.2019 the father of the victim girl lodged a complaint stating that on 18.11.2018 his daughter Miss Shahzadi Hafsa was got engaged with Mr. Jaber Ali (A1) at Jewel Function Hall at Masab Tank, Hyderabad, wherein he did engagement ceremony with all luxury needs and spent an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the function, that on 20.01.2019, the bridegroom along with his parents came to his house and requested for hand loan of Rs.7.00 lakhs, on that he handed over Rs.6.00 lakhs to Mr. Mir Mustafa Ali (A-2) on 22.01.2019 but after some days, when called, both the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 were not responding and later he came to know that A-1 has chosen another lady to settle the marriage on 26.08.2019 without any information to them. Hence, he prayed to take necessary action against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 would submit that the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged and the complainant, without any reason, made obnoxious allegations against them with a devious intention. He further submitted that there is no material to show the

¶8

¶9

allegation of giving Rs.6.00 lakhs and the police are disturbing the privacy of the petitioners with an intention to create pressure and make payment as demanded by the de facto complainant. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

¶10

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

¶11

As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 that they have got the wedding engaged with the daughter of the de facto complainant by spending Rs.5.00 lakhs and taking Rs.6.00 lakhs as hand loan and later settled marriage with another lady.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and as the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 cheated the de facto complainant and his daughter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

¶13

The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 surrender before the competent Court within a period of fifteen days from today and apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the said Court on the same day, in accordance with law.

¶14

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶15

_________________ (G. SRI DEVI, J)

¶16

31^st October 2019 RRB

Mir Jabbar Ali v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Jabbar Ali 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

Sri Reddy Salaman , Solomon Vs The State of Telangana

Umesh Gaikwad Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Basha and another Vs The State of Telangana

D. Rajashekar Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Mallu Tataji, Vs State of Telangana