Dismissed

Sarabbai Anjaneyelu , Sagamalli v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRLP/2680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the plea. The court held that the accused, despite a civil dispute and injunction in their favor, inflicted grievous injuries on the opponent using weapons during a violent confrontation. The nature of injuries and the allegation of false cases rendered it an unfit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest was refused; Criminal Petition dismissed.

Sarabbai Anjaneyelu , Sagamalli Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 2680 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. Sarabbai Anianevelu rE Sagamalli, S/o S. Chinna Thimmappa Age. 34 years. occ. Agricuiturat, R/o: 2-1"t: Gr,rtt, tirr-jg;,' c'rrattu Hijnoa[-Gdrta;il Gadwal Dist.509129

¶9

(alaryla Madhu, S/o. K. Sudhakar, Age. 23 years, Occ. Tractor Driver. R/o. B-13, Ghattu Viil and Mdt, Jogutamba GlOwar 6irt.3OSi2S

¶10

...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO,1 &2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanoana Through SHO, p.S. Ghattu, Jouglamba Gadwal. Represenred by its?ubiic proailub;, ,;sn cii,rti"i ir,J6tri" .ri"riri!*, at. Hyderabad

¶13

Boya Chintql-aiah @Mekha Chintataiah, Ro H No 2 986 Ghaftu Mandal Jogulamba Gadwal District

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under section 43g of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar peiition, the iign c"rrt ;ly L pleased to enlarge the petitionersiAccused No. 1 and 4 on bair in i-tre event oiirrei, Police Station, Ghattu, Jogulamba Gadwal Districtarrest in connection with crime No. 19 of 2023 dated 20.02.2023 "n tt,"-iirl or

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG/Ap) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K.INDRAJA Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶18

,t I i I I I iI

¶19

THE HONOUItAIII.E l)r. JUSTICE G. IIAI)HA IiANI

¶20

CRIMINAL PIITITION No. 2680 of 2023

¶21

oRDI,ttt:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is liled by the petitioners-A l and A.2 under Section 4i8 Cr.P.( ., lor grant of anticipatory bail in Crirne No.l9 o12023 ol-^(ihattu Policc Station, Jogulanrba Gadwal District. registc-rcd fbr the olf'ence under Section 324 read riith 34 IPC.

¶23

The casc of the prosccution in brief was that on 20.02.2023 at

¶24

7.,10 PM, the courpl:rinant lodged a report statir-rg that they rvere having Acs.li.05 gts. o1'land in Sy.No.275 in the outskirts of Ghattu Village. In that land there lve rc disputes u irh regard to Acs.5.00 ol' land raised b1, their villager. by name.^'l'ekkalanna and a civil casc \ias pcnding belore the couft. On 19.02.2023 evening at 7.00 PM, his parents went to sleep at the held as their farm implements and tools were there and also the paddy. At arouncl 11.00 PM, their villagers, by name, Anjaneyulu @ Chagamalli, Madhu S/o. Sudhakar and Govindu S/o. Tekkalanna came there and beat his parents with sticks. They beat his father on his head, back and left elbow and caused grievous injuries. When his mother tried to prevent them, she also sustaincd injures on her left hand wrist. On her scrcaming loudly, they escaped liom there. On the intbr.mation given by his pare.ts o'er plror.rc, hc wenr there and shifted thcrn to Govemment Ilospital, Gadwal and fionr there to Kurnool Govemrnent Flospitai for

¶25

--F

¶26

¶27

treatment.^{tlasing on the said rellort'policereqistercdrt caser idc Crirtle} No.19^{of 2023 fbr the oflence under Section 124 r'eadrvith 34 IPC'}

¶28

3.^{Heard leamed counsel lor the petitioners'thc Iearned Additional} Public^{Prosecutoras well as the learnedcounseltbr the lcspondentNo'2-} victlm

¶29

: a:!.,!g

¶30

'.;,i{t:!:,.

¶31

The^{leamed counselfor the petitioners submitted that the land} in Sy.No.275^{admeasuringAcs'13'05 gts' situatedat Ghattu villageand} Mandal,^{JogulambaGadwalDistrict betonged to a person,by name'} records and^{the said person was declaredas} Jambulanna,^{as Per revenue} protected^{tenant and the revenue authorities issued Protected Tenancy} Certificate^{under Section 38-E of the AndhraPradcsh(-felanganaArea)} Tenancy^{and AgriculturalLands Act' 1950' Out o[ the land allotted} under^{the protected tenancy' the saidtenant initially sub-leased the} subj^{ect propertyto the mother of AI lor cultivation on payment of annual} premium.^{Sincethen, Al's mother was in.possessionof the saidproperty} as a^{sub-tenant' The revenueauthorities conducted survey of the landand} filed^{a report to the Governmentandacknowledged that the accusedwere} in physical^{possession and cultivatingvarious cropsas per the season ln} order to enjoy^{the title and ownership of the suit schedule property'the} motherofAlunder.SadaBainama,purchasedthetandfromthe protected tenant for^{a valuable sale considerationand the same was} brought to the notice^{of the revenue authorities'On that basis'the then}

¶32

,....

¶33

.--:-r= ' -=\b:-. -+,,

¶34

.----€E-:

¶35

I-ahsildar issucrl rrrocec-din_rrs in luvoLrr ol the mother of A I rioclaring he.r .rs o\ ncr ulrd posscssor ol lhc ilnrl. l-he revenue authorirics also issr-recl pattadlr pass bot,li 'ide [)atta N..lti.l2 in f'avoul o1' thc rnr--thcr of 4 r . \rhen thc parcnts o1- the complainant tried to interfere into the possession ol the propcrlr'. petir.ioner. No l-AI flled O.S No.334 ol 2022 and I.A No.649 of 2022 and an ad-inter.inr injunction order dated 29.09.2022 was passed in his lavour by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jogulamba Gad*al. N.ticc rvas sen'ed .. tirc parents of the cornplainant.^-fhe-,'- alrpear.ed belble rhe cir,il coun. On 20.02.2023. Al also lodged a cornplaint against the parents ol the complainant and the same was .egistcred as C'irrc No.20 o1- 2013 lor the offences under Sections 447 and 417 read rvirh 34 IPC b1 the police, Ghattu police Station. Thc Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena ol-judgments held that police should not interlire in civil disputes. Registering the case against petitioners was against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event oftheir arrest.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-victim, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural lanci to an extent of Acs. 13.05 gts. With an intention to grab the land of the respondent No.2, the petitioners were re-softing b file lalse cases against them. The respondent No.2 filed counter and written statement in the suit filed by the petitioners. In order

¶37

;]]? .+

¶38

to eliminate^{the rcspondentNo'2,the petitioncrs attackedthe rcsl-rotrdent} No.2 orr 1g.02.2023^{nightat ll 00 PM' beathim brutalll nith sticksduc} to which^{the respondentNo.2sustained severe head injurlI ht'1also} caused injuries^{to his left elbowand other places'On the screaniingof} the wife of^{respondent No'2,the petitionerstled awai 'lhe rcspondent} No.2 called^{his son, who rushed to the spot and shilied the respondent} No.2 to the^{GovernmentHospital, Gadwal and frorn thereto Govcrnment} Hospitat, Kumool^{and enclosedthe medicalreportsol respondcntNo'2} and the^{photographs of him with injuries' fhc photographsrvould} disclose that^{the respondentNo'2 was beaten sevet'elyrvith sticks on his} head due to^{which he sustainedlinear undisplaced lracture of the right} parietal bone extending^{and subdural haemorrhagcin the right parietal} and temporal^{convexitiesand subarachnoid haemorrhage in rightfrontal'} left temporal^{sulci and subcentimetric haemorrhagic contusionsin} bilateral temporal^{lobes with surroundingoedema'}

¶39

6.LeamedAdditionalPublicProsecutoralsosubmittedthatasper the injury^{certificateof the respondentNo'2, he sustaineda lacerated} injury on the^{scalpand head injury with axe and sticks' whichwere} grievous in nature.

¶40

Considering^{the nature of allegationsmadeagainstthe} petitioners herein, the^{medical recordof the victirn and the photographs} filed woutd show^{that the victimsustainedgrievous injuries on his head}

¶41

cxrlscd b-\ da.lLCr()us \veal)()rs Iiltc axe and sticks ciue to thc civil disputcs

¶42

betrrc'cu thc narlits. ii is c.rsirlcrecl not a fit case lbr grant of anticiiratorr

¶43

brril to rhe pc:itioners heri-.in

¶44

In the lesult, the ('rinrinal Petition is disrnissed.

¶45

Nliseelllncous Pctitions pending, ilany, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/. T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

Lt,^.

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The I Additk,nal Judicial Fin 2 3 4 iElg,'#riffi1idqiflidrifffi ,tjt:"jff 1,,., 9n" 99^{to SRt K.tNDRAJA Advocare} topuii l,Xo""?rt#1",3,1 Public Prosecut"r, Hig'iibJ',irifor the state or reransana at 6 Two CD Copies^' KKS

Emq.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412023

A"
--:.l
<br><'t
.,,t1--''

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLP.No.2680 of 2023

¶58

DISMISSING OF THE CRLP @i^r' tq ts ,-s

Sarabbai Anjaneyelu , Sagamalli v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarabbai Anjaneyelu , Sagamalli 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

Mukka Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Bachala Hari Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Arkuti Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Vancha Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Arramshetty Sandhya Vs The State of Telangana

Bukka Venkata Ramana Vs State of Telangana