Allowed

Neeli Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2020CRLP/3233/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by Neeli Srikanth, an MBBS student accused under Sections 376, 419, 420 IPC and POCSO Act. Noting the completion of investigation and his medical studies, the Court granted bail with conditions regarding bond, surrender, and cooperation with the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for like amount, required to report to SHO on every Sunday until completion of investigation.

Neeli Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

[3168 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN ,-

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:3233 OF 2020

¶7

Bchveen:

¶8

Neeli Srikanth, S/oN.Ramulu,

¶9

,..Petitioner/Accused No.1^-

¶10

AND

¶11

l. The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, through SHO, Narketpally, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Larudi Saritha, D/o.Naga, aged 21 years, Occ: Student, R./o.Lavudi Thanda of Miryalaguda Mandal.

¶13

(R-2 is impleaded as per Court order dated 20.08.2020 in IA.No.I of 2020 in Crl.P.No.3233 of 2020)

¶14

.,.Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Petition under Section 437& 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in Crime Cr.No.91/2020,on the file of Narkatpally Police Station, Nalgonda District, for the offences U/Secs.4l9, 410,376 r/w.34 IPC and Sec/ 3 (2) (v), 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amdenment Act,2015. --

¶16

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition grd the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the-arguments of Dr.Patlolla Varun ileddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and ASST. PUBLIC PR6SECUTOR 1$ tor the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

¶19

TItE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶20

CRJMINAL PETITION NO.3 233 oF²⁰²⁰

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This petition is filed seeking to grant regular bail under Sections 431 and 439 of the Code of Criminal^{Procedure,1973} (Cr.P.C.).' The Petitioner is Accused No.1 in FIR No.91 of 2020 of Narketpalli Police Station, Nalgonda District,^registered for^the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 376 of the Indian^PenalCode, 1860 and Sections 2 (v) and 3 (1) ofthe Scheduled Castes^{and the} Scheduled T'ribes^(Prevention of Atrocities)^Amendment Act,²⁰¹⁵ against him and others.

¶23

Dr. Pattolla Varun Reddy, learned counsel tbr the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is prosecuting M.B.B.S. Course; he is innocent of the offence alleged against him; he has not committed any offence and he was implicated in the crime falsely. He would further submit that the petitioner is in^judicial custody from 24.06.2020 and the entire investigation is completed. The learned counsel has also filed copy of statement of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he sought to grant bail to rhe petitioner.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioner - Accused No.l are serious in nature and there is every possibility of

petitioner tampering the evidence and threatening the witnesses and,

¶29

therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.

¶30

Respondent No.2 - de facto complaint appeared in person and would submit that the petitioner has cheated her and she is receiving threatening calls from the friends and relatives of the petitioner and requested to dismiss the petition.

¶31

On perusal of material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 24.06.2020 and he is prosecuting third year MBBS Course. The investigation is almost completed. In view the same, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed granting bail to the petitioner with the following conditions:

¶33

i) The petitioner - Accused No.l shall fumish a personal bond for an amount ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two (02) sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda;

¶34

ii) He shall appear before the Station House Ofiicer, Narketpally Police, Station, Nalgonda District and report on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. tilt completion of investigation and filing charge sheet; and

¶35

iii) !e shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

¶36

¶37

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶38

' Sd/- I.NAGA I{l'{I rL.\lL .\SSISTA

//TRUE COPYII

SE OFIiICER

The Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act at Nalgonda.^--

¶43

The Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Proh & Excise Offences )at Nalgonda. -

¶44

The Superintendent. District Jail, Nalgondg-.

¶45

The Station House,Officer, Narketpally Police Station, Nalgonda District. --'

¶46

One CC to Dr.f'afolla Varun Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTORgtt+igh Court at Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶48

One spare cop1"

HIGH COURT

KL.J

DATED: 08.09.2020

+4)* CRL.P.No,d.9r2020 .iZz,r /?,,i,-

¶53

BAIL

¶54

AL c€i.<ol
l( $,1'
o
z i)
\ f 0sEPm Ct
*
^ -r rO
!

Neeli Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeli Srikanth 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

K. Amulya Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Maladi Ramadevi ,Naramma and 2 others Vs The State

Maladi Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Azmath , Mohammed Azmathullah Khan Vs The State of Telangana

R.Rama Koteshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Jadhav Santosh Vs The Additional Assistant Director