M/s Prime Movers Mobility Technologies v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2022CRLP/1862/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 483 CrPC challenging an order for interim custody of a vehicle. The Court modified the lower court's order to require a personal bond of Rs. 10 Lax with two sureties instead of a bank guarantee, allowing the petitioner to secure custody of the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties for like sums each; conditions remained otherwise unaltered; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s Prime Movers Mobility Technologies Vs The… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEI,4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'1862 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

[vl/s Pnme Movers I,4obility Technologies, Pvt Ltd., rep., by its Authorised Officer, Sri Shreenath Akhilesh, aged 45 years, Designation. Fleet Maintenance [,4anager, O/o. PIot No.18, Surver No. 1117, Chanda Nayak Thanda, Khanamet, Ayyappa Soc^jety, Madhapur, Hyderabad-

¶8

... Petiti oner/Owner of the Prope rty/Th i rd Pa rty

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Penpahad Police Station, Suryapet., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

... Responde nUCom p lainant

¶12

Jadav Anil, Age. Not known, Occ. Not known, R/o. Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent No.2/Accused No.1

¶14

Venu Doodipala, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 26 Years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Bhakthalapuram Village, Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District, Telangana State.

¶15

...Respondent No.3/Accused No.2

¶16

Rajendra Vannapuram, S/o. Late Pochaiah, Aged 43 Years, Occ. Driver-Car, R/o. H.No. l0-39, Posanipally^(Village), Choutkur,, Pulkal l/andal, Medak District - 502 273, Telangana State.

¶17

...Respondent No.4/Accused No.3

¶18

Rajendra Chary Daroju, S/o. Venkata Chary, Aged 30 Years, Occ. Mechanic, R/o. Gunjaluru Village, Chiwemula Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶19

...Respondent No.S/Accused No.4

¶20

Chandraiah Peddapolu, S/o. Narayana, Aged 29 Years, Occ. Driver-Car, R/o. Gunjaluru Village, Chiwemula Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶21

...Respondent No.6/Accused No.5

¶22

(Respondent No.2 to 6 is not necessary parties)

¶23

Petition und(l lieotion 483 0f cr.p.c praying that i . the circumstances stated in the Ven.r-ir.dum of Groundi of 6riililar^tpetitlo, t."ir gh 6;;;;ry be pteased t) arrov r.e criminirFeit;;'r;;';;i;sioe rh: ..de. dared 06_12_ 2021 passerr i'-, ('r ,'.4 p tto rsoz"oi^")o)',j- i"''c?ire N). ,;2 0f 2021, p s. Penpahad. Srrvac rt. r,y tne Ho n b t"-^{" -tr,,ietropJtita} n Sess,r rns Judqe-Cum_l Additionar Disrict a rcj Sessions Judge, at N;igJ;; and t,)., eTTodification ot orders datec 06-11 'zo?t and rn" pJt"t ""'"i^{lJ%rtvt,, p.cducethe sorvencvof} House^propertv for: re rrrerim c^u^sto.d;"1 il"'"";;i.;" Hyunr,rai :;antro rr,4T, peiror, car bearino rlo Tr oz ,rH s_ssa rlp'nti," bir",-Ii'ilr cor,rtr- wirh chasrs No: vRLnrsrcixrr'r07t't s2F ino rnsine i,i", ciHEii[io 2oT23, an,, p:rss such other order or orders as r r,. H6n;61s 6"r,r i" "^{r"ll"ii'i,r'nd prop"- in rhe interest of} justice. orelse we w,l s;ff:r irreparable fosl ani frail snlp

¶24

This^petition t; rntirg on for hearing, upon perusing ths I,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal )etition and upon hearing the arguments c f Sri SRINIVAS. B' Advocate for the l'etitilners and of the Additionar public rrlsecutor for the State of Telangana o iretlajf of the Respondent No.i

¶25

The Court made the t llowing: ORDER

¶26

I t,

¶27

THE HON'BLE DT" JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1862 of 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

i Heard the subrnission of the learned counsel for ihe petitioner as '"vell as the learned Additionai Pui:lic Prosecutor u,ho i-epresenting respondent No. I "

¶30

2" Challenge in this criminal petition is the order that is rendered b;; the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in Cr1.lr'i.P.No.1502 of 2O21 in Crime No.52 of 2A2L dated. 06.72.2021

¶31

3 ^ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved an application for interim custody of the vehicie and tlre court though honoured the said request, ordered the petitioner to execute personal bond for Rs.5,O0,OOO/- anC to furnish bank guaraltee for the same amount. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is unable to lurnish bank guarantee and therefore, the conditions imposed by the court beiow may be relaxed. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not^raise any objection for grant of such a relief.

¶32

1,1 .. ,, i,'' l :l I :e interin-r custodv sought fcr rs . hc rnotor cab be:rrir-r Registration No.'1S07 UH 559,5. 6 , Lliu,3 rcgard to the nature ol thc vr:hi,:le and the sul;mi ' ion t.hus made, this Court conside^-s it lesirable to honou he request of thc petitioner 7, T efefore, this Criminal Petition is r1i:;posed of and the ord - r-rnder challenge is modilied zrs follorvs:

¶33

rc petitioner shali cxecute a personial bond - Rsr.i,O0,000/- (Rupccs Or-re 1al<h o"rly) wi1.h t o sureties for like sum ea()11 tc, the tisfztction of the court concerned, ,\11 other C rditions shall remain urraltered.'7. As r sequel, misccllaneous petitions p t:rrding, if any, sha-11 s d c,osed. Sdr- T. JAYASREE qS SII;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' \J, SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1. I Additio al Sessions Judge,^Nalgonda. 2. Additio Judicial First Class^{lr,4agistrate,at Suryaot;t.} 3. The Sta rn House Officer, Police Station^{Penpahad,S uryapet.} 4. Two CC lo the Public Prosecutor, High Court at HyCr, rabad.(OUT) 5. One CC ,, SRl. SRINIVAS. B, Advocate [OpUCj 6. Two CD opre s ,t-KAM

HIGH COUR T

DT.CSJ

DATED:08l1ll2r)22

=a<br><br>I
,<br>FI
sa
!ao CQ
t
c
*..;,
J ito

¶38

ORDER

¶39

CRLP.No.IB)2 'tf 2022

¶40

THE CRIMIN/I,. PETITION IS DISPoSED CI:I:.

¶41

C
ftr 11-
lLt tr,

M/s Prime Movers Mobility Technologies v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Prime Movers Mobility Technologies 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

Deepak Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

D. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Khaji Gouse , Khazi Gouse Vs The State of Telangana

Khazi Ghouse Vs The State of Telangana

Cheekoti Buchi Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana