Partly allowed

Gundari Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2021CRLP/1100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal petitions for regular bail in a murder case. It rejected bail for A-1 due to the serious nature of the accusation while granting bail to A-2 and A-3 on personal bonds and sureties due to less severe alleged roles.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to A-2 and A-3 on execution of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties; bail rejected for A-1.

Gundari Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE O['TELANCANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶2

[3lsE I

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE JL'STICE G.SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 1030 & ll00 OF 202r

¶6

CRL.P. NO. 1030 0t'2021:

¶7

Betrv ee n:

¶8

Smt. Chelkuri Andalu @ Anuradha, W/o Narsing Rao,

¶9

Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶10

ANI)

¶11

'fhe State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.3 in connection with Cr.No.572 of 2020 on the file of the SHO, Balapur I'olice Station;

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶15

Counscl fol the Respondent

¶16

SRI G.V.L.MURTHY

¶17

ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

CRINTINAL PETITION NO: ll00 OF 2021 lletween:

¶19

l. Gundari Nagaraju, S/o. Uttanna,

¶20

?. Smt. Gundrati Yadamma, Wo Nagara,

¶21

Petitioners/Accused No.l & 2

¶22

ANI)

¶23

The State crlTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶24

Respondent/Complai nant

¶25

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances^statedin the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be^pleased to^{grant regular} bail^to the petitioners/accused No.l and 2 in connection with Cr. No.572 of 2020 on^the file of^{the SHO,} Balapur Police Station;

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners

¶27

Counsel lbr the Respondent

¶28

SRI GIRI BABU MARTHI

¶29

ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶30

The Court made the following;

¶31

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶32

ClRL.P.Nos. 1030 of 2021 and1100 of 2021.

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

Since both the Criminal Petitions are filed, under Se,:tions 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to grant bail to the petitioners in connection with Crime No.572 of 2020 ol Balapur Policer Station, Rachakonda, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., they are being disposed of by this common order. The petrtioners in Crl.P.No.1100 of 2027 are A-1 and .A'2 and the petitioner ln Crl.P.No.1030 of 2021 is A-3

¶35

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2020 at about 11.00 P.M., one Smt. Uppari Swathi, W/o. Veeraiah. lodged a complaint stating that she blessed with two daughters and one son and that her husband by name Uppari Veeresh (hereinafter referred to as " the deceased"), developed illegal contacts with A-2, they quarreled lvith each other several times and in spite of several panchayats before the elders, the deceased did not change his attitude and continued his illegal contacts with A-2 and he had taken away money and gold ornaments from her house. On 04J12020 night at about22.30 hours while the deceased sleeping in the house, he receivecl a phone call from A-2 and that he left the house and ag,rin at about 8.00 P.M., the deceased returned home with head injtrry and when she questioned him about the injuries,

¶36

¶37

¶38

he stated that he received a phone call from A-2 informing him to come to her house for taking the money borrowed by her husband (A1) from him and accordingly the deceased went there, where the A-1 to A-3 and others picked up a quarrel with him, sprinkled chilli powder into his eyes, attacked and assaulted him mercilessly with hands and iron rods. Subsequently, the de facto complainant shifted the deceased to Appollo Hospital, Kanchanbagh for treatment. Basing on the said complaint, the Police, Balapur, registered a case in Crime No.572 of 2020 initially for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and after the death of the deceased, the Section of law was altered to 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶39

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above case and they were remanded to judicial custody on 1,6.1'1.2020. He further submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are false, baseless and concocted; the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they never committed any offence. He also submits that as per the Remand Case Diary and charge^{sheet, it is} evident that the deceased was suffered with Covid-19^{and he was} shifted to Gandhi Hospital and thereafter^{he dieddue to Covid-l9.}

¶41

¶42

He further submits that entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed in the event of their enlargement on bail

¶43

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the applications and he fairly admits that entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶44

As seen from the contents of the remand report and other material papers available on record, it is evident that A-1 has received a hand loan of Rs.40,000/- from the deceased and r,r,hen the deceased asked him for return of the money, A-1 did not respond. Thereafter, the wi{e of the deceased lodged a complaint with Women Police Station, Hyderabad, against A-2 about her illegal contacts with the deceased. From a perusal of the Postmortem report, it is clear that the deceased has received a head injury, which corroborates the version of the prosecution that the deceased had received a head injury on the date of occurrence. According to the Postmortem report as well as the remand report, the deceased was attacked with Covid-19 positive after the operation to the head injury and accordingly he was shif ted to Gandhi Hospital only on 13.17.2020, though the alleged occurrence said to have been taken piace on 04.1,1,.2020. Hence, the contention

¶45

of the -learned Counsel for the petitioners that the deceased died S.'

¶46

¶47

on-ly due to Covid-19 positive and not because of the head injury is not correct. It is the specilic opinion of the doctor that the CaUSe Of death was due to head injury. Thus, looking into the nature of accusation ievelled against the 1't petitioner/ A-1 (Gundari Nagaraju) in Criminal Petition No.1100 of 2021,,I am not inclined to release him on bail and the prayer for grant of bail to A-1 is rejected.

¶48

Insofar as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, the allegations against A-2 is that she has assaulted the deceased with hands and sprinkled chilly power into his eyes and that no specific overt act has been attributed to A-3 except stating that she has agreed to cooperate with A-2 in the commission of crime. Thus, looking into the nature of allegations leveled against A-2 and A-3 and also the fact that they were in judicial custody since 16.1L.2020 and that the charge sheet has already been submitted, I am inclined to release A-2 and A-3 on bail.

¶49

The 2nd petitioner/ A-2 (Gundrati Yadamma) in Criminal Petition No.1100 of 2021and the petitioner/A-3 ( Chelukuri Andalu @ Anuradha) in Criminal Petition No.1030 of 2021are directed^{to be} released on bail subject to certain terms and conditions:

¶50

The 2.d petitioner/ A-2^{(Gundrati Yadamma) in Criminal} Petition No.1100 of 2021and the^{petitioner/A-3(Chelukuri Andalu} @ Anuradha) in Criminal^{Petition No.1030 of 2021shall be released}

¶51

¶52

on bail on their executing personal bond^{to the tune of Rs.50,000/-} (Rupees fift''z thousand only) each with two sureties each to the like amount to the satisfaction of thb V-Additional lr{ehopolitan Magisfrate-c:um-V Additional Junior Civil Judge,, Cl.berabad at L.B.Nagar. Further, they sha1l personally appear befo:'e the Court concerned t>n each date of hearing; they shall not directly or indirectly in.fluence or make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from clisclosing such fact to the Court and they shall not misuse the llberty granted to them,

¶53

Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.1030 of 2021. is allowed and Crimina I Petition No.1100 of 2021. is allowed in part

¶54

..f.

¶55

//TRUE COPYII

¶56

SD/- B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTR,AR \X

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

The V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum V Additional Junior Ciivil Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar.

¶60

l'he VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.l). Nagar.

¶61

The Superintende,nl, Central Prison Cherlapalli. Ranga Reddy District.

¶62

The Superintendent, Chenchalguda Central Prison (Women Ceil). Ranga Redd1, District

¶63

Tl.re Station llouse Officer. Balapur Police Station, Rachakonda C]omrnissionerate.

¶64

Trvo CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of^'I'elangana at Hyderabad (OU1')

¶65

one CC to Sri G.'/.L.Murthy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶66

one CC to Sri Giri Babu Marthi, Advocate (OPUC)

¶67

one Spare Copy

I{t(;H COt R't

GSI)..'

DAI-E: 19-(13-2021

ORI)ER

CRt..P. .r-OS. 1030 & ll00 OF 2021

¶75

t].{tL

Gundari Nagaraju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundari Nagaraju 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

Mr.Narender Kumar Patel Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Vodnala Rayamallu Vs The State of Telangana

S.Naga Subramanyam (A-4) Vs The State of Telangana

Vade Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Tapre Sudhakar, Adilabad Dist Vs Public Prosecutor, Adilabad Dist and Another

Smt. Chelkuri Andalu , Anuradha Vs The State of Telangana