Allowed

Vatti Venkat Reddy and Another v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2021CRLP/314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to accused Persons 5 and 6 facing murder and weapon possession charges, subject to conditions of surrender, personal bond, and appearance before the police.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Anticipatory bail granted to Accused Nos. 5 and 6 subject to surrender, personal bond with sureties, and appearing every Saturday.

Vatti Venkat Reddy and Another Vs The State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

|^31s8 I

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶7

CPJMINAL PETITION NO:31.1 OF 2021

¶8

Behyccn:

¶9

l. Vatti Venkat Reddy, S/o. Shesi Reddy, (A-5)

¶10

Mattipally Gurvaiah, S/o. Saidutu, (4-6)

¶11

....Petitioners/Accused

¶12

AN I)

¶13

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana at Hyderabad. ,,..Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 438 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 the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station, to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in comection with Crime No. 95 of 2020 of Suryapet Rural Police Station, in the interest ofjustice.

¶15

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.T.S.ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate lbr the Petitioners and ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) for the Respondent, the Court made the lbllowing.

¶16

ORI)ER

¶17

The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 & 6 seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.95 of 2020 of Suryapet Rural Police Station, Suryapet District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections l20b and 307 read with 34 IPC and Section

¶18

25(lXA)of the Arms Act.

¶19

Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶20

As seen from the contents of the complaint, the total allegations levelled against the petitioners are that they have conspired along with all the other accused to kill one Vatte Janaiah and made several plans. However, though in the FIR, it

¶21

has been specifically stated that all the accused are conspired to-lether and made a plan to kill Vatte Janaiah at Hyderabad with Thapanchas, Taivars etc., no recovery of either Thapanchas or Talvars whatsoever has been made fron the possession of the petitioners. Though the offence is said to have been made from May, 20 19 till July, 2019, the FIR was lodged in May, 2020 i.e. one year after the alleged occurTence. Moreover, the prosecution has also not placed on r<:cord any criminal antecedents of the petitioners.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners have been included in the FIR basing on the conf'essional statement of the accused No.1, who is said to have been subjected to harasisment politically, financially, mentally and physically by the said Vatte Janaiah.

¶23

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant a:rticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Looking into the nature of allegations levellt:d against the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 and having regard to the other facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into tfre merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6.

¶25

Accordingly, the Crirninal Petition is allowed and the pt:titioners/Accused

¶26

Nos.5 and 6 are granted anticipatory bail subject to the foll cwing terms and conditions:

¶27

( 1) PetitionersiAccused Nos.5 and 6 are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Sunrapet, within a period ol four (04) weeks from the date of this order and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release thern on bail on their executing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,0(t0/- (Rupees

¶28

5-)

¶29

twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.

¶30

(2) The petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and co-operate with the lnvestigating Officer in investigating the case.

¶31

(3) The petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 shall personally appear before the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Suryapet, on evely Saturday between 10.00 am to 2.00 pm, till completion of investigation and filing ofcharge sheet.

¶32

Sd/- B.SATYAV THI ASSISTANT II,EGI ITAR //TRUE COPY// e/ SECTION OFFICER

¶33

¶34

l. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶35

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet.

¶36

The Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station, Suryapet District.

¶37

One CC to MR.T.S.ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶38

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG), High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶39

One spare copy

¶40

Note: The order dated 09.02.2021 in crl.P.No.3l4 0f 2021 in condition No.2 Petitioners/Accused Nos. corrected as^('5 and 6" instead of "l to 6 and 8" as per Court order dated 30.06,2021 in IA.No.l of 2021 in Crl.P,No.3l4 0f 2021, Substituted this amended 0rder in place of earlier order which Ivas dispatched 0n 09.02.2021.

¶41

sdt '.st DIrA ASSISTANT ITEGISI'I{.\R

HIGH COURT

(;st)..1

DA'l'ED; 09.02.2021

30.06.2021

AN,IIiNI)ED ORDER

CRL.P.NO.3l4 0F²⁰²¹

ffina;
.$ I
.S
<br>trct* 1/
<:==.'

¶50

ANTICIPATORI' BAIL

Vatti Venkat Reddy and Another v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vatti Venkat Reddy and Another 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

Boda Thirupathi Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Azharuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Anthargam Sanjeev , Anthargtami Devid Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Khadeer Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Khadeer Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Khadeer Baig Vs The State of Telangana