B.Tirumalesh v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Inspector of Police
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court observed that a Section 107 Cr.P.C. bond executed in 2013 for keeping the peace had expired after one year per statutory provisions. Consequently, the current petition seeking quashing of proceedings became infructuous, and the matter was closed.
What did the court decide?
Proceedings in the criminal petition are closed as they have become infructuous due to the expiry of the bond period.
What the court decided
HIGH COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THETENTHDAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLEDR' JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINALPETITION NO: 10731 OF2013
Between:
B.TIRUN4ALESH, S/o.MallaiahR/o.Arepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF A.P.,REP. BY ITSINSPECTOR OF POLICE, Hasanparthy, Warangal Ois[., ttrroughPubli;Prosecutor High Courtof A.P., Hyderabad'
.,...RESPONDENT
Petition under Section482 of Cr.P,Cpraying thatin the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum ofGrounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to call for recordspertaining to theproceedingsin DR No.4304of 2013on the file of the ExecutiveI"lagistrate, Hanamkonda14andalWarangal District
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings pending under Section 107 Cr.P.C. regarding a bond for keeping the peace survived after one year.
Whether Section 107 Cr.P.C. orders for security valid for one year are still operative if more than a year has elapsed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
B. Tirunallesh
- respondent
The State of A.P.
Coram
Chillakur Sumalatha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/10731/2013
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court