Allowed

Mohd. Chand Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jul 2021CRLP/5226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the lower court to reconsider a second bail application on merits without reference to a procedural objection regarding earlier funding arrangements, disposing of the criminal petition in the petitioner's favour.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Warangal to consider the second bail application without reference to the objection dated 17.06.2021 and pass orders on merits.

Mohd. Chand Pasha Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

N/ONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINA PETITION NO: 5226 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ir/ohd. Chand Pasha, S/o. lmam Saheb

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED¹

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Public Prosecutqr,HighCourt for the State} Telangana for S.H.O., P.S. Ghanpur^{(W),JangaonDistrict.}

¶11

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition under section 482 of^{Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the lvlemorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition, the High courtmaybe pleased} to call for the records relating^{to the crl.lr/.P.SR.No. 48012021 , daled2810612021,} on the file of the Principal District^{and Sessions Judgeat warangal and quashthe} same with a direction to the^{learned Principal District and sessions Judgeat} Warangal to register the^{bail application filed by the petitioner'}

¶13

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{P.etitionand upon hearingthe argumentsof sri D.BHASKAR} REDDY, Advocate for^{the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent.

¶14

The Gourt made the^{following:ORDER}

¶15

¶16

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.5226oF 2021}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This petition is^{filed under Section 482 of Cr'P'C''} seeking to^{quashthe docket endorsementdated 28'06'2021} in Cr1.MP.SR.No,48O^{of 2O2l in Crime No'86of 202 1 passed} by the Court of^{Principal District and SessionsJudge at} Warangal (Court^{below) and for a consequentialdirectionto} the Court^{below to register the bail application and dispose of} the same in accordance^{with law'}

¶19

Heard Sri D.Bhaskar^{Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner and learned^{Public Prosecutor'Perusedthe record'}

¶20

A perusal of the^{record wouldrevealthat the petitioner} herein is accused^{No.1 in Crime No.86 of 2O2l pending on the} file of Police Station,^{Ghanpur(Stn), The offencesalleged} against him are under^{Sections 302 and 201 read with 120-B} of IPC.

¶21

The Police have arrested the^{petitioner on 22.04.2021.} The petitioner has filed a bail application^{before the Court} beiow vide Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2021, and^{accordingto iearned} counsel for the petitioner, the same^{was dismisseclon} 24.O5.2O27 itself. Thereafter, the^{petitionerhas filed another} bail application on 17,06.2021 vide^{Cr1.MP.SR.No.48O of}

¶22

)

¶23

The Court below has returned the said bail application \ on 17.06.2021 with art objection that aiready Crl.Mp.No.234 of 2021 for accused No.1 was filed by G.prudvi Raj, Advocate, hence returned. The petitioner has re-submitted it on 28,06.2021 stating that the affidavit of parents fired and no limitation applicable. Hence, re-submitted. Even then, without considering the same, the Court below has returned the said bail application on 2g.06.2O21stating that objection dated 17.06.2021 was not complied with, hence returned.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier bail application i.e., Crl.M.p.No.234 of 2021, was filed by Sri G.prudvi Raj, Advocate, without instructions either from the petitioner or his father. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Court below by way of filing an alfidavit by the father of the petitioner on 2g.06.2021 itself, but the Court below did not consider the same.

¶25

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below has aiready dismissed first bail application of the petitioner i.e., Cr1.M.p.No.234 of 202I. But a perusal of the docket proceedings dated 17.06.2021 in Crl.Mp.SR.No.4B0 of 202 1 would reveal that learned counsel appearing before the Court below did not mention the fact that the first bail application was dismissed on 24.05.202 1 itself. He has stated that affidavit of the parents of the petitioner ,,vas filed.

¶26

/ //

¶27

¶28

Therefore, the Court^{blow without considering the fact that as} on the date of filing^{ofsecond bail applicationi ' e '} ' Cr1.MP.SR.No.480 of^{2021, first bailapplication i e',} Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2021,^{was dismissed on 24.O5.2021,} returned the second bail application on the^{ground that the} first bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.234 of^{2021 was} filed^by Mr.G.Prudvi Raj, Advocate, but the first bail appiication was dismissed on 24.O5.2021 itself.

¶29

In view of the said submission, more particularly the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first bail was dismissed on 24.05.202 1 itself, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the iearned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Warangal, to consider the second bail filed by the peti"tioner vide Crl.Mp.SR.No.4B0 of 2O2l without reference to the objection dated i7.06.2021 taken by the Court below and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merits. Registry is directed to return the original documents to learned counsel for the petitioner under due acknowiedgement.

¶30

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in

¶31

the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶32

¶33

Sd/- M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶34

The Principal District & S essions Judge at Warangal 2. The Vll Additionat. Judicial First Clas s IVagistrate Court at Warangal 4. The Station Housle Officer, Police S tat ron, Ghanpur (W ), Jangaon District 5. Two The Section OfficerCCs to public PCriminal rosecutorSection,High Court Highfor the Court for Stateth e State of Telan ga na of Telangana, Hyderabad. (ouT) tl. One CC to Sri D.Bhaskar Redd y, Advocate (OpUC)

¶35

7 Two C.D Copies.

¶36

One Spa re Copy MRC

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1210712021

ORDER

GRLP.No.5226^o12021

'1vrE S rArE
(
"(
J
3
Jur20t1
o
*
Psp.qlC

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶43

Lo
13

Mohd. Chand Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Chand Pasha 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

Shaik Imthiyaz and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Salman and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana

Durgam Varalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Chintakuntla Tharun Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Koripelli Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana