Dismissed

Dara Ragini v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Sept 2020CRLP/1075/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the accused in a SC/ST (POA) Act case. The Court found the below court followed due procedure by hearing the de facto complainant before granting bail and noted no violation of bail conditions. The petition failed to establish grounds for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed.

Dara Ragini Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY .THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'1075 OF 2020

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Dara Ragini, D/o Dara Veerappa, age- 35 years, Occ- Pvt.,Job, R/o H.No. 1-9278149110, Near Balaji Temple, Balajinagar, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ De facto - Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Jammikunta Police Station, Rep., By Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad .. Respondent / Complainant

¶12

Somaraju Vinay Sudheer, S/o late S.Kamalakar Rao, age- 35 years, Occ- Branch Post lVlaster, R/o H.No. 1-97, Pentalm Village, Annapreddy Mandal, Bhadradr Kothaguem District. .. Respondent / Accused

¶13

Petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cancel the regular bail granted to the Respondent No.2 herein/Accused No.1 vide order dated 21-01-2020 in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts ( POA) Act cum Vl Addilional l,4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in FIR No.7 of 2020 Nallakunta Police Station for the offence^punishable under Section^{- 417} , 376, 506 1PC and Sec- 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) S.C., and S.T.(POA) Act, 2015,^pending investigation and trial,

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. JITHENDER ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna ,Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O75 OF 2O2O

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Petitioner/ cie facto complainant has filed the present application under Section 43912) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent No.2/accused No.1 b1' the Court ol Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cr-rm-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad vide order dated 21 .Ol.2O2O in Cr1.M.P.No.37 of 2O2O in Crime No.7 of 2O2O of Police Station, Nallakunta, Secunderabad.

¶20

Sri B.Jithender, learned counsel for the petitioner, u,ou1d submit that the Court below u,ithout follorving the due procedure laid dor.r,n under the SC and ST (POA) Act and also the procedure laid dor,vn under the Cr.P.C., granted the bail to respondent No.2/A-1. Therefore, he sought to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent No.2/A- 1.

¶21

On the other hand, Sri N.V.Anantha l(rishna, iearned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/A- 1, u,or-rld submit that the Court belon summoned the de facto complainant, she n as present in the Court and after hearing her on1y, the Court belou'has granted the bail to respondent No.2/A- 1. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present application.

¶22

1 . On perusal of the order dated 27 .O7 .2O2O, the Court belou' at paragraph No.4 of the order specificalll' mentioned that the de facto complainant b1, name Kum.Ragini \'as present, heard her and she has submitted that the accused beat her ar-r d there is threat from the accused. Thus. the Court belou,, after hearing tlne de facto complainant only, granted regular bail to respondent No.2/A- i. It is not the complaint of the petitioner I de facto compiainant that respondent No.2/A-1 has violated the conditions imposed by the Court below in the order dated 2l.Ol.2O2O

¶23

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner herein lailed to establish an1, ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2-A- 1. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismrssed. Miscellaneous petltions pending, if an5', sl-rali stand disposed ol.

¶24

SD/. CH. VENKAT^ESHWARLU. ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶25

LL" //TRUE COPY' SECTION^OFFICER

¶26

¶27

1.The Special^{Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCsand STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl} ' il;iiiffiiM;iioiptiitu" sesiions Judge' Secunderabad' 2. The station^{ttouse otticer'""t'iiiilx"ttiForic"station'Secunderabad'} 3.Two CCs^{to Public pro=""rto'ri'iiiti"it,1tt iii fii" staie of Telangana at Hvderabad'} 4 5. one One cc CC to^{to Sri B. N.V' Jithender, AnanthN.V' Jithender, AnanthAnanth} sri^{Sri B. N.V' Jithender, AnanthN.V' Jithender, AnanthAnanthAdvocarl} [i'r!ij" toru"l

¶28

one One cc CC to One cc CC to CC to^{to Sri B. N.V' Jithender, AnanthN.V' Jithender, AnanthAnanth}

¶29

Two^C.D.CoPies

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATED:1610912020

I
l; S
1 t{
o;
co 22 SEP2M (j
f .L.
+
t)
Pt'j

¶34

ORDER

¶35

CRLP.No.1075^{of 2020}

¶36

DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION.

Dara Ragini v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara Ragini 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

P.V.R. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.M.Padma Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Kannareddy Thoom) Vs The State of Telangana

Jakkula Chandraiah and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Yousuf Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Janga Shiva Vs The State of Telangana