Allowed

Medisetti Narayana Rao , Naidu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2020CRLP/39/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the petitioner, accused of cheating and caste-related offenses, under Sections 437/439 CrPC, subject to a bond, appearance in court, and cooperation with investigation without examining the merits of the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.15,000 and two sureties, on conditions to appear, not tamper with witnesses, and cooperate with investigation.

Medisetti Narayana Rao , Naidu Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

[31s8 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 39 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Medisetti Narayana Rao @ Naidu, S/o.Chennaiah,

¶9

..,.Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by tis Public Prosecutor, ofTelangana, Hyderabad 2. Nandigama Vidya Sagar, S/o.Late Yesobu, Age: 45 years, Private Electrician, R/o.H.No.4-128/46, Jalagam Nagar, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. (As per the court order dated 09.01,.2020 in IA.No.2 of 2020 R2 is impleaded in Crl.P.No.39l2020)

¶12

.,,.Respondents/Complainant

¶13

Petition under Sections 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 direct release of the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending enquiry and trial arising out of Crime No. 212 of 2019 of Khammam III Town Police Station, Khammam District.

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.T.NAGARJIINA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner and ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Karunakar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2, the Court made the following.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

IIONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.39^pf202Q

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The petitioner-accused filed the^present application under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant bail to him in Cr.No.212 of 2019 on the file of lll Town Police Station, Khammam, Khammam District, registered for the offences under Sections 420,294-8,323 IPC and under Section 3(r)(s) and under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SCs & STs^(POA)Act.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the^{petilioner/accused} induced the de-facto complainant to arrange seat to t,is daughter in Agriculture ICAR Recognized College for studying Aqriculture BSc, and took a sum of Rs.10,15,000/-. However, the accus;ed arranged a seat in Bharathiya Engineering Science and Technol,rgy Innovation College at Vadiyampeta of ,*nanthapur District, which is not recognized college, thereby the accused cheated him and that when the de-facto complainant asked to return the amounl, the accused abused him in the name of caste and beat him with chappal

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in order to settle the money transactions and other business transactions pending between thenr. He further submits that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant known to each other for the past 20 years and there was an agreement between them on 28.08.2018 in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.711lA of Miryalaguda Revenue Mandal, as per which, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.37,51 ,000/- towards sale consideration,

¶22

¶23

but, no such land is available, due to which, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 25.06.2019. He further submits that as counter blast to the notice, the present crlme is registered against him. He further submits that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and that the petitioner is in judicial custody stnce 19.12.2019 and he is not having any criminal antecedents previously. He further submits that the petitioner shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-de-facto com plaina nt.

¶25

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner/accused.

¶26

As seen from the contents of the FlR, there are money transactions between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. Thus, in view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to him on certain terms and conditions.

¶27

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:

¶28

(i) That the petitioner/ accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶29

(ii) that the petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court concerned^personally on each date of hearing^till conclusion of lrial. n --

¶30

¶31

¶32

(iii) that the petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any similar type of activities, in future;

¶33

(iv) that the petitioner/accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶34

(v) that the petitioner/accused shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶35

(vi) that the petitioner/ accused shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.

¶36

B As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any oending, shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

sD/. K. SArr-Esr-l 'r AS!: IS'f, rsl'R.6-R

¶39

/ITRUE^COPY//

¶40

FOT AISSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶41

Ta 1. The III^{AdditionarJudiciar Firstclass Magistrate'_Khnmam, KhammamDistricr}

¶42

;. iil il;;;t*"J"",,^{oitoittp'ison'Khammam' KhammamDistrict} 3. The Station^{Horr" orn"tt]icrtuJ#u"'-rliTo#pori"" Station'Klammam'Khammam} District.

¶43

6;;'aa^{to SRi.r.NAGARrLrl{AEEDDY} 11"^":1:^[oPUC:

¶44

One^{CCto Mr.Karunakar Reddy; Advocatt} -!'.tYt^J . 6. Two^{CCsPUBLICPRoSE'uibR(TG)' High Courtat Hvderabad (oUT)}

¶45

One^{sPare coPY}

IIIGH COI-RI'

GSD,.I

DATED: 09.01.2020

cRL.P.NO.39 0Ir 2020

BAIL

l0 ta

Medisetti Narayana Rao , Naidu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medisetti Narayana Rao , Naidu 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

Mohd. Abdul Arif Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Abdul Wahab Vs State of Telangana

Thatipalli Dubbaiah Vs The State of Telangana