Allowed

Mohammad Jahangeer Pasha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2021CRLP/368/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners against FIRs alleging dowry death, cheating, and planting. Court noted repetitive nature of allegations and pendency of similar case, ordering surrender and investigative cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within four weeks, personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, and monthly appearance before the investigating officer.

Mohammad Jahangeer Pasha Vs State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

l-11s8 l

¶2

HIGTI COI. RT I,'OR THE S'I'ATE OF'II.-LT\NGANA AT TIYT)EIIAB.\I)

¶3

FR]DAY. TIIE FIF'IH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE-

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE.IUSTICE G SRI DEvl -

¶6

CRIMINAI- PETITION NO: 368 OF 2021 -

¶7

I} ctween:

¶8

L Mohammad .lahang6er l)asha. Slo.latc Gulam Ahnrad Pasha.

¶9

Sogra Banu,S/o.late Gularn Ahnrad Pasha,

¶10

i. Lubina Tabassuni. W/o.Md.Khaja Pasha.

¶11

Md.Khaja Pasha,-Sio.Md. Khadar

¶12

... Petitioners/A I to A4

¶13

ANI)

¶14

State ofTelangana. represented by its Pubhc Prosecutor Iligh Court of1'el!-ngana. Hyderabad.

¶15

.. . Responden t/Com plainant

¶16

Petition under Section 438 ol'Cr.['.C. praving that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition" the lligh Court rnay be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.l to^zl in crime No.24312020 registered on the file of SHO P.S. Kothapalli Karimnagar District.

¶17

The petition coming on lor hearing. upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearrng the argumenrs of SRLGoPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI - Advocate for the Petitioners and ASST.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) for the Respondesnt. the Court made the following.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

I'H[; IIONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶20

CRIN{INAL PETITION No.368 of 2021 -

¶21

ORDT,R:

¶22

The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/.r-1 to A-4 seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their irrrest in connection with Crime No.243 ol 2020 of Kothapalli Poli:e Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishirble under Sections 498-4, 420,301 ,354 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowrv Prohibition Act.

¶23

Hearrl the leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing lor the respondent-Stater and perused the record.

¶24

As seen llom the material on record, this is the seconcl round of litigation betwe()n the parlies. The first FIR vide Crime No.174 of 2018 was regist,:red at III-Town Police Station, Karimnagar, for the offences punishe.ble under Sections 498-4, 420,307,354 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, basing on the application filed by lhe de facto cornplainant under Sectic'n 156(3) Cr.P.C., which vras referred by the Magistrate concerned. When the accused sought for anticipatory bail llr the said case, another coordinate Bencr of this Courl, vide order dated 24.08.20 18. while dealing with the said application for anticipatory hail, has categorically stared that only general allegations of harassrnent and ill-treatment including the demand tbr additionat dowry have been.

¶25

¶26

made, to attract the provisions under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation for the offence under Section 307 of IPC has been levelled against all the petitioners on the pretext that on 03.09.2017, they have asked her to prepare tea, by causing leakage of gas to do away with the de facto complainant. The said anticipatory bail application was allowed and A- l was released on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

¶27

Again, the de facto complairrant has filed the present private conrplaint inler alia stating therein that the she was necked out by the petitioners fiom their house on 21.09.2017 and since then she has been staying along with her parents. It is further alleged that the petitioners/accused have dishonestly convefted the cash given by her father at the time of marriage for their personal use and thereby cheated the complainant and breached the trust reposed on the accused. Except the aforesaid general allegations, there is nothing against the petitioners that they have demanded additional dowry or that she has gone to her inlaws' house alter lodging of the first complaint in Crime No.174 of 20 l8 till lodging of the present complaint. There is nothing on record to show that the de facto complainant was staying with the petitioners and that they have demanded additional dorvry and as to rvhich of the petitioners have specifically demanded such dowry.

¶28

Thus, looking into the nature ol allegations levelled against the petitioners and having regard to the oEbep. facts and circumstances of

¶29

¶30

the case, rvithorrt delving into the merits of the case, I am^inclinedto grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶31

Accordirgly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioners are 3ranted anticipatory bail subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶32

( 1) The petitioners/A- 1 to A-4 are directed to sumender before the Station House Officer, Kothapalli Police Station, Karimnagar District, within a period of four (04) weeks liom the date of this order and on such sunender, the said Station House Officer shall release them on bail on each 01' them execr"rting personal bond fbr Rs.25,000/- (Rr"rpees lwenty five thousend only), with two sureties each to the like sum to the satisfa<tion of the aloresaid Station House Officer.

¶33

(2) The l" petitioner/A-l shalt appear befbre the investrgating officel on 1'' and 3'd Saturclay of every month between l0 a.m. and 2 p.m. till the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filod.

¶34

(3) The petitioners shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Sectic,n 438(2) Cr.P.C and co-operate with the Investigatrng Officer in investigating the case.

¶35

Sd/- t,.I-AKSH}{I^BAtY ASSIST{Nr^I{EG\y)NAR

¶36

I o

¶37

,r'Rr.'E⁽ OP'//

¶38

st.( 1'l())i ol;[l('^t.'ll

¶39

I The Adtlitional .ltrdicirl^{First (llassN4agisttateat Karintnagar'} ;. il;;;;lior.. otti..( Kothapalll^{Police Station'Ka'in.rnagar[) strict'}

¶40

:. One CC^{to SIll.(,Ol'}ALA KRISIiNA KAI'ANll)HIAdvocate [()Pl.]C'l} 4. Two^{CCs to the I,UBLICI,l{OSECI-l'lOR('lG). tligh Court at II}de'abad (()Ll )} 5. One^{sPare coPY}

HIGH COL'RT

GSD..I

DATDr 05.02.2021

cRL.P.NO.368 0F 2021^.',

¶45

ANTICIPATORY I}.A,IL^.-

¶46

rtB )rlll

Mohammad Jahangeer Pasha v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Jahangeer Pasha v. 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

R. Venkata Krishnaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Sode Lingaiah , Tula Vs The State of Telangana

Abburi Venkata Ramakrishna Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and another

V. Madan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Telengana

Sadhan Sarkar Vs State of Telangana