Allowed

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

Telangana HC15 Sept 2020CRLP/3938/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court granted bail to four accused accused of cheating and forgery. The court reduced the complaint to internal business disputes and ordered surrender within 15 days with personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners to surrender within 15 days; release on personal bond of Rs. 5,000 each with two sureties for the same sum.

P.V.R. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

13168 I

¶2

IN THE HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUIJSDT\Y.^,f IIE FIFTEEN,|H DAY OF SEPTE\4BER I\'O TIIOLISAND AND TWhNTY

¶3

: PRESE\I:

¶4

1-IIE IIOYI]LT- SRI .IL SI ICI K.L.\KSII}IA\

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3938 OF 2020

¶6

Bcfween:

¶7

L P.V.R. Murthy, S/o Guravaiah

¶8

R.V Prasad, S/o Venkateshwar Rao

¶9

U. Shiva Subrahmanyam, S/o S. Umathanu

¶10

.1. M. Narasimha, S/o Lakshmaiah

¶11

Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4

¶12

ANT)

¶13

The State olTelangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at flyderabad

¶14

Respondent/Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in suppo( olthe Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an anticipatory bail in the event ol'the petitioners/Accused No.l to 4 being arrested by the SHO. Jubilee Hills P.S, Hyderabad, in connectiun with Cr.No. 4i5 o1'2020:

¶16

'l'he petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition filed in support thereof and upon hcaring the arguments of Sri T Bala lVlohan Reddl' Advocate lor the Pctitioners and Public l)rosecutor lbr the Ilesponderrt. the Court made the fbllorving. OITI)EIt

¶17

¶18

ara?ala..<<<<?.--

¶19

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶20

CRTMINAL PETITION No.3938 of 2O2O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This apl,lication is filed seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioners ar,: A-1 to A-4 in Crime No.435 of 2O2O of SHO, Jubilee Hills I)olice Station, Hyderabad District. The offence 1S alieged agairrst the petitioners punishable under Section 384 17w. Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Sri T. Ilala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/A- 1 to A-4 would submit that the defacto complainant^'vas an employee of Gemini-FX, a registered Company. He worked in various capacities. He has created a fake and fabricated Letter Head, which contains the office name of Gemjni-FX and made money. Petitioner No.2, being Operations - Incharge of the said Company, has lodged a complaint witlr the above police. In proof of the same, learned counsel for th: petitioners has filed copies of the complaints. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that on registratior of this crime, the police of Jubilee Hi1ls Police Station sent S MS to petitioner No.2 that the complaint filed by him is close d.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the a rplication for grant of anticipatory bail on the

¶25

KL. ] Crl.P.No.3938 o12020

¶26

¶27

¶28

aa aaaa,

¶29

ttaaaaa

¶30

ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature.

¶31

On a perusal of the entire material papers, it is not in dispute that the defacto complainant was an employee of the above said Company. Petitioner No.2, being Operations Incharge of the said Company, has lodged a complaint dated 21.11.2019 with the SHO, Jubilee Hills Police Station, for the oflences committed by the defacto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a receipt 1n proof of submission of the said complaint. Thus, it appears that the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint after petitioner No.2 lodged the above said complaint on 21.11.2019. The said facts would disclose that there are disputes between the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein. Under the said cir'cumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A-1 to A-4.

¶32

Accordingly, this Crimina-l Petition is allowed. The petitioners/A-7 to A-4 are directed to surrender before the SHO, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad District, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release the petitioners/A- 1 to A-4 on bail on their executing separate personal bonds for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to his satisfaction. The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 shall abide by

¶33

KI-, J Crl.P No.3938 o12020

¶34

the conditions stipulated in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C and shal1 co-operate wit r the Investigating Officer in investigating th,: CASC.

¶35

Miscellarreous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶36

Petition. shall stand closed.

¶37

SIi,'- N. CHANDRASEKHARA^RAO A.iiSlSl'AN'l' (; ls ll

¶38

'f o

¶39

//.1 til. t.l⁽ ol'',

¶40

st,r(^{-l'lo</sup> ol'1.'l(llllt}

¶41

l. ,l.hc XVII l\dditit nal ()hief Vctropolitan MagiStrate at Nanrpall)'. Iltclcr.a[rad 2. l-hc Station tloLr-s:^{ol'llccr..lLrtrilee IIills Policc Station'llr Jcrlhacl} .). Onc^{( (} to Sri l lirla^{Mohanllcddl Ad()cat!'} l()l'(^i(| l I rr rr^{( ('} lo I)ttbli^{: I)tttsccttl.or'.lligh(. r'trrt.l ll dcrabad(Ol l I )} 5. ()nc spal c eo pr C ;k

¶42

lil(;ll⁽ ot l{^I

¶43

l( L.l

¶44

l)A l lll):I5/{)9/2020

¶45

()lll)r lt

¶46

( l{ l.l'. \ o.39.lli o 1 2020

¶47

(] ,l' \l.l.o\ Ll)

¶48

yru STATEC E4 (o
e
'2
o
r 5 st+us
n
I
o
I otsprt ^;-(

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V.R. Murthy 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

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Abhishek Maheshwaram Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Bonagiri Srinivas, And Another Vs The State of Telanangana, And another

Mr.M.Padma Rao Vs The State of Telangana

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

Bheemshetti Sridhar And Another Vs The State of Telangana And Another