Allowed

Paidi Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Mar 2021CRLP/961/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving atrocity charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC, noting the involvement of civil disputes and lack of prior record as key factors.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on terms of personal bond with sureties, appearance at specific intervals, and prohibitions on tampering or misuse of liberty.

Paidi Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

[^31s8 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶6

:PRESENT:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 961 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Paidi Raju, S/o Sailu,

¶10

Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High

¶13

,.^{Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Through P.S.}

¶14

1 Ellanthakunta Police Station, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District

¶15

Bigulla Krishna, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 35 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-83, Kandikatkur, Ellathakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶16

(R2 is Implead as per Court order dated 24/02/2O2L in IA.No. L of 2O2L, in CrlP.No.96L/ZOZL)

¶17

Respondent/Complainant

¶18

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending investigation and trial in Cr.No.76 of 2027 on the file of Ellanthakunta Police Station, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District on such terms and conditions in the interest of^justice

¶19

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the

¶20

Petitlon and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon

¶21

hearing the arguments of SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA Advocate for ..-the Petitioner and the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No.1, the Court made the following.

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

7 / I

¶24

H()NOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶25

CFIIMIN AL PETITION NO.961 0F 202t

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The petitioner/ accused filed the present Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to grant bail to him in Crime No. 16 of 2O2I of P.S. Ellanthakunta, Rajanna Sircilla District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294-8 and 5O6 of th,: Indian Penal Code and Section 3(t)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record.

¶29

The allegation against the petitioner/ accused is that on 18.01.2021 at 17.30 hours, the de facto complainant^gave a compiaint stating that on 1l.Ol.2o2l at 10.00 hours, while he was returning from the agricultural land, the petitioner/accused r:ame on two wheeler, stopped him and abused him in his caste name as "madiga lanja konduka naku sambandinchina bhumi lo alukudu endhuku chesina.avura" and also threatened him with dire consequences to kill him.

¶30

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

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is falsely implicated in the above case. The petitioner/ accused is in custody since 02.02.2021 and he has no

¶32

\ \

¶33

¶34

previous criminal antecedents. Hence, it is^prayed to consider^the petitioner's application for bail.

¶35

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the^{case and as} there are civil disputes between the^parties, I am^inclined to^grant bail to the petitioner/ accused.

¶36

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused

¶37

shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:

¶38

(i) That the petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.15,00O/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirciila;

¶39

(ii) That the petitioner/accused shall appear before the investigating authorities on every first and third Saturdays between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm till conclusion of investigation and submission of final report;

¶40

(iii) That the petitioner/accused shall not indulge in similar type of activities in future and if it is found that he is indulged in similar type of activities in future, the liberty granted to him shall automatically stand cancelled and he would be taken into custody forthwith.

¶41

(i") that the petitioner/ accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶42

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

¶43

(vi) that the petitioner/accused shal1 not misuse the liberty granted to him.

¶44

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

¶45

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

__ L - Sd/.^{T.TIRI.]MALA DEVI} ,?) ASSIST^{ANTREGISTTTAR} //TRUE^{COPYI I} SECTI OFFICER

I I

To,

The ludicial lvlagistrate of First Class at Sircilla

¶52

The Superintendent Sub lail Karimnagar

¶53

? The Station House Officer, P.S. Ellanthakunta Police Station, Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District

¶54

4 One CC to SRi. SHAIK KARIMULLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

q Two CCs to PUBt-lC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad [OUT] 6 One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:1 010312021

ORDER

CRLP.No.961 of 2021

BAIL

Paidi Raju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paidi Raju 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

Mohammed Sami, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Nomula Anil Goud Vs The State of Telanagana

Rakeesh Cheela Vs The State of Telangana

B.Yeshwanth Kumar and Another Vs State of Telangana, Thro. P.P and Another

Mohd. Raoof Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Raoof Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana