Dismissed

Smt. Puranam Swarnalatha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Nov 2021CRLRC/567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to a lower court order that allowed an accused person to travel to Belgium on personal bond and fixed deposit terms, dismissing the revision as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, refusing to set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2021 that allowed the accused to travel to Belgium.

Smt. Puranam Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY^{FOURTH DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶5

CRIMINAL REVIS ION^{CASENO: 567 OF 2021}

¶6

crl.Revision case Under^{Section397 & 401 of cr.P.c.against the order} dated 05-1 1-2021 in crl.M.P.No.^{450 0f 2021 in c.c. No. 40460f 2021 0n the file of} the court of the v Additional^{Junior civil Judge cum V AdditionalMetropolitan} Magistrate at L.B. Nagar,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Puranam swarnalatha,^{w/o.V. Madhuveer,Age.31years,occ.Housewife,R/o.} H.No. B-7-93NE/85, Norlh^{Extension, Hasthinapuram,Saroornagar} ^Mandal^Ranga n"OaVOirtriCt,feiangana-500079.^{...PETITIONER/DefactoComplainant}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{rep.by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt,Hyderabad}

¶11

Vastrala Madhuveer,^{S/o. Vastrala Umapathi, Age.36 years, Occ Pvt Employee'} - nyo. H.f.fo. '1-5-32, Near Jamishanpur Streiet, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Teiangana - 500020 ...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner^{/ Accused}

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c.^{prayingthatin the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto} suspend the order in crl.^{MP. No.450 of 2021 in c.c. No.4046 of 2021 passed by} the Learned v Additional^{Juniorcivil Judge - cum - V Additional Metropolltan} Magistrate. at L.B. Nagar Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. GOPALAKRISHNA KALANIDHI}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{NO.1: THE ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : NONEAPPEARED}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.567 of 2O2l

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 407 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant, challenging the order, dated 05.11.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.450 of 2021 in C.C.No.4046 of 2021 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent No.2/A.1 seeking to permit him to travel Belgium with his Passport No.16799844 to attend his job by keeping the Look Out Circular, iF any issued against him, in abeyance, in connection with subject C.C.No.4046 of 2027, was allowed by the Court below on certain terms and conditions

¶22

2, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for tlre respondent No.l/State and perused the record.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant would submit that the Court below ought not have allowed the subject Crl.M.P.No.45O of 2021 and permitted the respondent No,2/ A.1 to travel to Belgium. If the respondent No.2/A.1 travels to Belgium, he would not come back to India. It is contended that the conditions imposed by the Court below that A.1 has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and he shall also deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of Fixed Deposit in the Court, are no matter for A.1 and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2021 and allow the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for.

¶24

)

¶25

As seen from the material^placed on^{record, the Court below} vide impugned order dated 05.11.2021,^{while granting permission to} the respondent No.2 herein/A,1 to travel to^{Belgiumhad imposed} certain terms and conditions. Some^{of the conditions imposed by the} Court below are that the^{respondentNo.2/A.1 has to file an} undertaking that he would appear before^{the Court below as whenhis} presence is required and he has to execute a^personal bond^for a^sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and also deposit an^{amount of Rs.1,00,000/-by way} of Fixed Deposit. The conditions^imposed by^{the Court below are} stringent. The apprehension of the^{petitioner/de facto complainantis} based on surmises and conjectures.^{The Court below had given valid} reasons for granting such^permission to the^{respondentNo.2/A.1.} There is no perversity or illegality in. the impugned^{order passed by} the Court below. There are no^grounds to^{interferewith. The Criminal} Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶27

Miscellaneous petltions, if any,^pending in this Criminal^Revision

¶28

Case, shall stand closed.

¶29

S D/.C.V.MALLIKARJUNA^VARM A DEPUTY REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 TheVAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge.cum.VAdditionalMetropolitan magistrate,^{Ranga Reddy Districtat L B Nagar'}

¶34

2 inl 3iuti"" Hotise^{officer, W P S' Saroornagar'Rachakonda} Commissionarate,^{Ranga Reddy District}

¶35

3 Two CCs to^{Public prosecuto'' HighCourt at Hyderabad for the State of} Telangana^(OUT)

¶36

1. o;; iC to SRl.'copnle^{KRIsHNA KALANIDHI Advocate IoPUC]}

¶37

Two CD^CoPies

¶38

One SPare^CoPY KUL TR "

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411112021

ORDER

CRLRC.No.567 of 2021

1tl E S'Ar{
(! bs
(
o
L) 04 ,lAil ?!12
-L
'-
*

¶44

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

¶45

2,<br>"L

¶46

r--t;:=;t-F:.-:

Smt. Puranam Swarnalatha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puranam Swarnalatha 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

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia Vs Goverdhandas Partani and 7 Others

Sri Md. Shamsad Ali, Vs the Insp of Police, Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb.

Kamini Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Addanki Hemanth Kumar , Raju and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Patan Khadar Khan Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rakesh Niranjan Ranjan Vs State of Telangana