Dismissed

Perala Hari Hara Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023CRLP/5508/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a bail petition in a murder and mutilation case. The Court dismissed the petition noting the execution of the offence involved gruesome mutilation, body disposal, and CCTV footage showing the deceased and accused together, deeming it an inappropriate case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sought enlargement on bail. High Court directed committing magistrate to commit the case immediately.

Perala Hari Hara Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5508 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Perala Hari Hara Krishna, S/o P Prabhakar, Aged 22 yearc, Occ Student, Fyo Flat No. 204, Katipally Yellamma Nilayam, SBI Officers Colony, Musarambagh, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by PS Abdullapurmet Rangareddy Through the Public Prosecutor High Court building Hyderabad

¶12

Mr. Nenavath Shankar, S/o Ramulu aged 45 Years, Occ Labour Fl/o.Okkaraithanda Shirshanagandla Village Charkonda Mandal Kurnool District

¶13

(R2 impleaded as per Court Order dated 1210712023 in lA No.1i23 in Crl.P.No.5508/2023)

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.11912023 on the file of PS Abdullapurmet.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J.C.FRANCIS, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I ]E HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE /U. LA}A^AN

¶19

(:RIMINAL PETITION No.5508 CtF 20 :l ii

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Ihis )c,tition is fited under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Pr c{ldure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) see(ing tl 3rart regutar bait to the e:itioner who is arrayed as accused irr ,..rinre No.119 of 202.3 o1 nbdu[[apurmet Potice Station Hy'cerabad. The offences aI rged against the petitioner are under ti,ect:ions 302, 201 oi thr ndian PenaI Code and Section,t(i.)(v) of the Scheduted C istes and Scheduted Tribr:s ([)r::vertion of Attrocitie:;) rnrendment Act, 2015.

¶22

The s n and substance of case of the prosr:c Jtion is that on 17 l18.Oi 2023, the accused attegedty took decr,'ased to the secret placr and attegedty murdered and ttrerealtt:r, the parts of the bodl vr'ere cut off and thrown eac.t parl at different ptaces. Or 24.C2.2073, the accused surre,ndere,d before the Potice and < )rlfessed att the acts done by l"im. Ba:ing on such confession, 'lR was issued and investigatio"l wa: lakr:n upon. During the i v,rstigation, at the instance of accu:etJ, the parts thrown by I n- were recovered under cover of parchnama. ln

¶23

¶24

the investigation, the police atso extracted CCry footage from various ptaces. The deceased and accused together roamed before the incident. Basing on the said attegation, charge sheet was fited.

¶25

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire case was built up on basis of confession and there is no other independent evidence implicated against the petitioner. lt is also contention that the Court below has dismissed the apptication only on the ground that there is threat to the famity members of the deceased and the witnesses. ln fact there is no materia[ to show that such a threat exist at any time in the past. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is entitted for bail, pending triat.

¶26

Learned Additionat Public Prosecutor opposed the bait application by contending that execution of offence itsetf shows that it is a calcutated attempt to murder and gruesome mutitation of body chopping of each part of the body and also screen the evidence by throwing various cut parts of the body in different ptaces. According to him, various places, the deceased and accused were together moved were shown to have

¶27

¶28

I I

¶29

been estab shed by recovery of the CCTV footage.. T'herefore, there is gru s()me murder and this is not fit (:ase to 3ra.rt bait.

¶30

A cto e scrutiny of the investigation done try the potice ctearty den rrlstrates that the deceased and p{lt.tioler were ctose frrern s and they were studying B.Tecl- in different cotteges. T e elrtire offence was executed =or w.inrrine the tove of respond nt No.2 and deceased was pre'r'.ous [over of responden t '1o.2^{and subsequentty,} retationshipr brokt: up and she was m ving closety with the presen.: p€,titionor. The investiqatior at:;o discloses that the dec=ased ;rgain made attempt to I rrew his retationship with respondent I'1o.2 and this was not [l k€ I ry the petitioner and he fett.:hat thr:,re is threat to his [ove. firerefore he has executed the presert offr:nce and the body p, 'ts were chopped off and the,y were tf rown at differen t pl ,c9s. The manner of execut-on cf of..ence is gruesome, ! hrch shocks entire pubtic and it is ten(lency to create pani( irmong the pubtic. Apart from t.lat the CCTV footage coI :< ted ctearty demonstrate that [)rior to the execution of an offence, the deceased and,tccus()cl were seen and nroved t gr:ther and the evidence atso shows tl;t basing on

¶31

a;,..s

¶32

¶33

the disclosed statement, various body parts of the deceased were recovered and throwing att the body parts itsetf indicates an attempt was to screen the evidence cteverty. ln the said circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant regutar bail to the petitioner-accused at this stage.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminat Petition is dismissed and the Court betow is directed to commit the case immediatety and the Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the SC as early as possibl.e. lt is atso made clear that any observations made in

¶35

this case sha[[ not come in the way of triat. Miscetlaneous

¶36

petitions, if any sha[[ stand ctosed.

¶37

Sd/.P.NAGABHUS AMBA ASSISTANT^REGITRAR

/ffRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

l.TheXlVAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrateCourt,atHayathnagar. 2. The Central^{Prison,CherlapallyJarl'} ;. +il; 56iil^{noriJ'om"et,'policeStation'at Abdullapurmet'} i. ii,i"""cc'.^{t,, it} "^{Fruri" pitjt"i'io''High iourtfor the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶42

iji';"aC t"^{dri .tt.rrancis, Advocate[oPUc]}

¶43

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610712023

ORDER

CRLP.No.5508 of .20 :3

¶49

,ti
<br>;$' <br>(
q$
I
<br>...+. .;/
ggi'.i 4 ..7

¶50

CRL.P. IS DISMISSE

¶51

[[ ,tl
e)

Perala Hari Hara Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perala Hari Hara Krishna 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

Kura Subhadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana

Cheekatimalla Veerender, Vs The State of Telangna

Vaidhyanath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pachamatla Sai Revanth Varma, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathlavath Seetharam Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Shaik Abdul Azeez Vs Papanolla Krishnaiah