Allowed

Thatipalli Dubbaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2020CRLP/37/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to accused persons charged with abetment of suicide. The High Court, without delving into merits, inclined to grant bail on terms including personal bond, appearance before investigating officer, and prohibition of tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs.20,000/- each and two sureties for same, subject to eight specific conditions.

Thatipalli Dubbaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 37 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thatipalli Dubbaiah, S/o Poshaiah,

¶9

Medi Shankaraiah, S/o Bheemiaah,

¶10

Medi Rajanna, S/o Chandraiah

¶11

lVledi Ganganna, S/o Ramaiah

¶12

Medi Rajaiah, S/o Ramaiah,

¶13

Medi Sathaiah, S/o Chandraiah,

¶14

Medi Lasmavva, Wo Gangaiah,

¶15

Samudrala Ravi, S/o Narayana

¶16

I\Iedi Shankar, S/o Pochaiah,

¶17

Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 11

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature At Hyderabad (Through P.S. Bheerpur, Jagityal Distirct (Old Karimnagar District)

¶20

RespondenUCom plainant

¶21

Petition under Section 432& 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 petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 to 11 on bail in connection with Crime No. 92 of 2019 of P.S. Beerpur, Jagtial District (Old Karimnagar District ) during the pendency of inquiry and

¶22

tria I

¶23

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI J KANAKAIAH Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

¶26

FI.)NOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRIDE!I

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.37 of 2020

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioners-A3 to 41 1 filed the^present application under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking^to grant bail to them in Cr.No.92 of 2019 on the file of Beerpur Police Station, Jagtial District, registered for the offence^under Section 306 reacl with Section 34 lPC.

¶30

The case of the^prosecution is that the husband of the defacto complainant had committed suicide on 04.11.2019 by consuming pesticide due to the^pressure made by the accused for payment of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was decided at Panchayat conducted between the de-facto complainant and one Shakapuram Vanaja on the allegation that her son had illegal contacts with Vanaja. \

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners/A3 to 41 I submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are all false and baseless and invented by the de-facto complainant as the^petilioners have finalized the dispute in the panchayat, where the de-facto complainant, the deceased and their son admitted their guilt. He further submits that the petitioners are innocent^,rf the alleged offence and there is no criminal record previously against them. He further submits that the petitioners were arrested on 18.'l 1 .2019 and that the police have recorded the statements of all thr: witnesses. He further subm ts that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and hails from resperctable family and they shall cooperate with the investigation. He further submits that th. petitioners shall furnish

¶32

¶33

¶34

sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and they shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

¶35

4, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/A3 to Al 1.

¶36

As seen from the contents of the FlR, at the instance of family members of the de-facto complainant and Vanaja, a panchayat was held by the petitioners and other accused at Rekupalli Village, wherein the son of the de-facto complainant and the deceased was admitted his guilt and accordingly, they decided to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to said Vanaja by the family members of the de-facto complainant, but as they have not paid any amount, the petitioners asked the deceased to make payment of said amount. Except these allegations, there is no allegation of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. Thus, in view of the nature of allegations levelled against the^petitioners and other facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to them on certain terms and conditions.

¶37

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners/A3 to Al'1 shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:

¶38

(i) That the petitioners/A3 to 41 1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees tvventy thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial.

¶39

(ii) On such release, the petitioners/A3 to 41 1 shall appear before the lnvestigating Officer on last Saturday of every month between 10.00 AM and 5.00 PM., for a^period of three months.

¶40

¶41

¶42

(iii) that the petitioners/A3 to 41 1 shall appear before the Court concerned personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of trial.

¶43

¶44

(iv) that the petitioners/A3 to 41 1 shall not indulge in any similar type of activities, in future;

¶45

(v) that the petitioners/A3 to Al 1 shall not tamper with the prosecutlon witnesses;

¶46

(vi) that the petitioners/A3 to Al 1/A-1 shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶47

(vii) that the petitioners/A3 to Al'l shall not misuse the liberty granted to them.

¶48

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any^pending, shall

¶49

stand closed.

¶50

<br>

¶51

SD/ B.^S ATY AVATHI ASSIS'TANT (, IST(AR

¶52

I/TRUE^COPY" :]ECTION^oFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

i+H:ll,rri+'j:iilE-{::,,"fi^{ffiflgi:':'.fi*;:"..(cdKarmnasar}

¶55

4 6 hi':h:"'n,;sffi^{[r,+3H:il1;'1"J"":"'HvderabadroUr]}

¶56

6 One^SPareCoPY

¶57

¶58

Note :^{rhe ry pog ra phical error i 1 tne o{1} {3!el"t^:;'J;1113ii'

¶59

ilril.n^{o.st,,; i zdzo in date of order is correc}

¶60

Substituted^{this amendedorder in placeof earlier order which}

¶61

*"=^{ajJJ"tihed on oe'01'2020'}

¶62

SD/ B.^SATYAVATHI AS:SISTANT^REGISTRAR

I I I i I

I i Ii I

i t

I i i I I I t I

i i

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:09/0112021)

AMENDED^ORDEIR

ORDER

CRLP.No.37^{of 20',20}

¶74

BAIL

¶75

oF'
,I:.
2>
;{Y ss
$
;t! tl,

Thatipalli Dubbaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thatipalli Dubbaiah 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

Jangam Tilak Raj Vs The State of Telangana

Thumma Bhaskar Reddy Vs Bheereddy Jaipal Reddy

Shakti Viraat Singh Rathod Vs State of Telangana

Medisetti Narayana Rao , Naidu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Arif Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Abdul Wahab Vs State of Telangana