Dismissed

Trivikram Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Aug 2021CRLP/3999/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., concerning offences including rape and cheating. The court rejected the plea, considering the grave nature of allegations, and allowed for regular bail only upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; surrender required within two weeks for regular bail consideration.

Trivikram Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI}

¶5

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 3999 OF2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Trivikram Rao,^{S/o. Bharath Raj, Aged} ?b^q'l ?9^{years' Occ sarpanch'Fl/o' Boainpally} Village, Narayanpet^{Mandal, Narayanpet utstrtct'}

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

n'nn court^{ror the state} +:i.frj;:,31^{Jfl:s:?t ff gr:losi'[ii:'i:fr'"1"stY]l"l:}

¶11

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition^{under Section 438 of Cr'P'C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto enlarge^{the petitioneron Bail in the event of his arrestin Crime No'44of 2021ol} P.S. Narayanpet,^{Narayanpet District'}

¶13

the^{lr,4emorandum of} ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusing the^argumentsof Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearing} Public^Prosecutoron Sri. G.^V Srirama^{Murty, Advocatefor the Petitionerand the} behalf^{of the ResPondent'}

¶14

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶15

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3999 OF 2O2I

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.p.C.), is filed by the petitioner/ accused, Ior grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.22 of 2021 of P.S. Narayanpet, Narayanpet District, regis;tered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k)(n), 3S,4D, 420 and 506 of the Indian penal Code.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused, the learned Assistant public prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the pe titioner/ accused would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offences and he is no way concerned with the a.lleged offences. The petitione;./accused is a law-a[jdi6g citizen and is prepared to abide by any condition which this Court may deem fit to impose in ca:e of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused.

¶21

Learned Assistant public prosecutor reFresenting the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ accused.

¶22

As seen from the contents of the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitioner, which are grave in nature.

¶23

Thus, looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/ accused and his involvement in conrmission of the offence and its gravity, I am not inclined to grant €.nticipatory bail

¶24

¶25

reJected.to the petitioner/accused and his prayer for anilcr.patory bai.l is

¶26

The Criminal petition is, accordingty, dlsrnissed. However, if the petitioner/ accused surrenders before the competent Court within a period of two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the said Court, in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to surrender within two weeks from today belore the competent Court, the police concerned shall take coercive measures against him.

¶27

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶28

SD/- K. ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶29

¶30

The Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District.

¶31

The Station House Officer, Narayanpet Police Station, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶32

4 One CC to Sri. G. V. Srirama Murty, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

¶33

6 One Spare Copy

kul

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^17t0812021

'( $E S t;1 i4:
qr
o
C)/ t<br>3)
!) 20 AtJGz0fl r:.1
t 1-
2
_--

¶39

ORDER

¶40

CRLP.No.3999^{of 2021}

¶41

DISMISSING^{THE CRL.PETITION'}

¶42

Trivikram Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trivikram Rao 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

Manne Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Anumula Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Sabavath Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Maloth Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

E. Vijaypal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam Vs Mr. T.C.Pandurangam