Allowed

Rekha Niramala v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Apr 2021CRLP/2394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail filed by Rekha Niramala under Section 439 CrPC. The petition was dismissed as filed for an order related to possession of illicit liquor under the Prohibition Act and AP Excise Act. The court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner/ accused shall be released on bail by executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions.

Rekha Niramala Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[^31s8 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2394 OF 202'l

¶5

Between:

¶6

Rekha Niramala, Wo. Kotaiah

¶7

...Petitioner/Accused

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Thonur).

¶10

. .. Responde nUCom plaina nt

¶11

Petition under Section 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 release the Petitioner/Accused on bail in orders vide Cr. No. B/27 412021 , dated 04-03-2021 passed by the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive lvlagistrate, Maripeda, It/ahabubabad District (erstwhile Warangal District).

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s S. CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate for the Petitioner and of Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner/ accused llled the present Criminal Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to grant bail to her in COR.No.340/2020 dated 04.11.2O2O of P.S. Prohibition & Excise Station, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) of the Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the AP Excise Act, 1968.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel lor the petitioner/ accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner/ accused is that on 04.ll.2O2O the petitioner was found in possession of two litres of illicit distilled liquor and a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner was issued a notice vide MC.No.B 1777 l2O2O dated 18.12.2020 and an opportunity was given to her to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as agreed by her in the bond, within one

¶17

¶18

1x /

¶19

week from the date of serving of that order but she did not pay the amount in the given time and the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate at Maripeda Mandal directed the SHO to produce the petitioner before the authority as she failed to comply with the order dated 18.12.2020 and issued a warrant of commitment on failure to find security for good behaviour under Section 122 Cr.P.C. dated 04.O3.2021.

¶20

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

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submits that the petitioner is eking her livelihood by working as coolie and she is no ^,ay concerned r,",ith the alieged offence and the Prohibition and Excise police have falsely implicated her in this case. Hence, it is prayed to consider the petitioner's application for bail.

¶22

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/ accused.

¶23

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

¶24

(i) That the petitioner/ accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,OOO/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar & Mandal Executive Magistrate, Maripeda;

¶25

(ii) That the petitioner/ accused shall not indulge in similar t1,pe oI activities in future and if it is found that she is indulged in similar type of activities in future, the liberty granted to her shall automatically stand cancelled and she would be taken into custodv lorthwith.

¶26

(iii) that the petitioner/ accused shall not tamper with the prosecutiolr witnesses;

¶27

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

¶28

(v) that the petitioner/accused sha1l not misuse the liberty grantecl to her.

¶29

¶30

("i) that the petitioner/ accused shall appear belore the Court concerned personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of trial.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶32

Sd/. I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

To,

The Tahsildar and Mandal Execute Magistrate at Thorrur, lvlahabubabad District

¶37

The Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate Maripeda, Mahabubabad District.

¶38

The Execute [rr'lagistrate at Danthalapally.

¶39

The S.H.O., PS Prohibition and Excise, Thorrur ltrlahabubabad District

¶40

The Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal.

¶41

6 One CC to M/s. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC].

¶42

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶43

B One spare copy

¶44

7.1:.1::.

¶45

Note: On being mentioned in the order dated 06.04.2021 in Crl.P.No.2394 ol202l in pra;er and order Mandal name corrected as " Maripeda" instead of "Thorrur" as per court order dated 20.04.2021 in IA.No.l of 2021 in Crl.P.No.2394 of 2021. Substituted. this amended order in place ofearlier order which was dispatched on 06.04.2021.

¶46

Sd/. B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:06/0412021

20.04.2021

ORDER

AMENDED ORDER

CRLP.No.2394 o12021

BAIL

?2 APR
,.
l

Rekha Niramala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Niramala 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

Marka Mallesh, Rr.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Radheshyam Baheti Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others

Mahipal Reddy, Medak Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Chettupalli Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Shasanka Danda Vs The State of Telangana

Bandaru Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana