Dismissed

Garlapati Jaihnder Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2020CRLP/26/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing criminal petitions for anticipatory bail in a suicide case involving accused accused of financial mismanagement leading to the death of the deceased's husband. Bail denied with direction to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender within 15 days to file regular bail applications.

Garlapati Jaihnder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.26, 75 and 105 of 2020

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since all these Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same Crime, viz ., Crime No.210 of 2019 on the file of Zaffargadh Police Station, Warangal Rural District, and are filed by the accused in the said Crime seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in the aforesaid Crime, all the cases are being heard together and disposed of by a common order.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState and perused the record.

¶6

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.12.2019, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that accused Nos.1 to 5 who are working as business partners with her husband-deceased collected huge share amount from the deceased and did not return back the amount to the deceased till now, due to which, the deceased felt mental agony with financial crisis and consumed pesticide poison; and that later, one Vankudothu Bujji and Gugulothu Suresh, who witnessed the incident, shifted him to Laxmi Ganapathi Hospital for medical treatment and later, was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital for better treatment and that while undergoing treatment the deceased died on 13.12.2019.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that the deceased has not invested any amount in the business carried on by the petitioners; that in fact, the husband of the de facto complainant has no capacity to invest amount for doing business with the petitioners; that the husband of the de facto complainant worked as a Security Supervisor in M.G.M. Hospital till 2015; and that the de facto complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioners only to harass them to cause wrongful harm to them. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not satisfy the requisite ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that the Police completed the investigation and hence, release of the petitioners will not cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution; that the petitioners are having fixed address and properties and they undertake to cooperate with the police till the conclusion of the trial and prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the aforesaid crime. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. As seen from the suicide note written by the deceased, it seems that the petitioners are the cause of death of the deceased by committing suicide. 7. Thus, in view of the above and looking into the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the facts and

¶9

¶10

circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

The Criminal Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of this order and they are at liberty to file bail application(s) before the Court concerned. On their such surrender and filing of bail application(s), the Court concerned shall consider such application(s) and pass orders in accordance with law on the same day, after giving due notice to the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶12

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these criminal petitions, shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 10_^th January, 2020 dr

Garlapati Jaihnder Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garlapati Jaihnder Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Abdul Arif Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Abdul Wahab Vs State of Telangana

Thatipalli Dubbaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Munny Vs The State of Telengana.

Syed Naushad Ali Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Taher Khan Vs The State of Telangana