Dismissed

Subash Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023CRLP/8513/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal petitions filed to quash an order cancelling bail and to grant fresh bail. The court held that the trial court correctly cancelled the petitioner's bail due to his criminal antecedents and violation of bail conditions by misbehaving in court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners prayed for quashing of bail cancellation order and grant of bail. Both prayers rejected; petitions dismissed.

Subash Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD^DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6244 AND^{8s13 0F 2023}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 62440F²⁰²³

¶8

Between:

¶9

Subash Kumar Sharma, S/o.^{Ram Sudhar Sharma,Age. 32 years, O'4': Servent} With Abdul Bari, R/o. Ward No.2, Jagath^{SinghpurVillage, RanitolPost, Dist} Samastipur, Bihar State.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Telangana,^{Represented Throughits Public ProsecutorHigh} Court Hyderabad.

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Perumalla Balaswamy,^{S/o. Rayappa} @^{Latchaiah, Aged..S7 years, c€ste.} SC(Mala), Occ. Employee^{in LlC,Rl/o.Muthireddikunta, MiryalagudaTown.}

¶15

...RESPONOENT/DEFACTO- COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the HighCourt may} be pleased to^{quash/set-a-side} the^{impugned ordersin CRL.MP.NO. 417ot 2021} dated 13-07-2022 in Crl.MP.^{12 Ot 2019, in CrimeNo. 139 of 2018PS.} Miryalguda I Town^(SC No. 70 of 2019)^{on the file of the Hon'ble Special} Sessions Judge for trial of cased^under SC/ST(POA)^{Act Nalgondaia as abuseof} process of law.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourt may} be pleased to suspend the impugned orders in CRL.MP.NO.^{417 of 2021dated} 1310712022 in Crl.MP. 12 Of 2019, in Crime^{No.139 of 2018 PS. MiryalgudaI} Town (SC No.70 of 2019) on the file of the Hon'ble Special^{Sessions Judge for} trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act^Nalgonda.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri VIZARATH ALl, the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶20

CRIMINAL PETIT]ON NO: 8513 OF 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

Subash Kumar Sharma, S/o. Ram Sudhar Sharma, Age.32 years, Occ: Servent With Abdul Bari, Rl/o. Ward No.2, Jagath Singhpur Village, Ranitol Post, Dist. Samastipur, Bihar State.

¶23

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶24

AND

¶25

The State Of Telangana, Represented through it's^public prosecutor High Court Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶27

Perumalla Balaswamy S/o Rayappa @ Latchaiah, aged: 57 years, Caste: SC (Mala), Occ: Employee in LlC, R:/o Muthireddikunta, Miryalaguda Town.

¶28

Perumalla Balaswamy S/o Rayappa @ Latchaiah, aged 57 years, caste SC(Mala), Occ: Employee in LlC, Rl/o Muthireddikunta, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

¶29

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT

¶30

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.139 of 2018 PS. Miryalguda I Town (SC No.70 of 2019) on the file of the Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act Nalgonda.

¶31

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri VIZARATH ALl, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 and 3.

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINA^{L PETITION Nos.6244OF2023} AND 8513 0F²⁰²³

¶35

COMMO^NORDER:

¶36

Criminat^{PetitionNo.6244 of2023 is hled by the petitioner/} accused^{No.2 under Section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code (for short} 'Cr.P.C.')^{seeking to quash/set aside the impugnedorders in CrI MP} No.417 ot^{2027 d,ated 73'07 '2022 inCrl'MP'No'12 ot 2O19 in Crime} No.l3gof2Ol8ofPoliceStation,MiryalgudaITowninSCNo.Toof 2019 on^{the fite of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases} under SCs/^{STs(POA) Act, Nalgonda and for other allied reliefsand} whereas, Criminal^{PetitionNo'8513of2023 is hled bythe} petitioner/ accused^{No'2 underSections 437 and 439 of Cr'P'Cfor} grant of bail in^{Crime No' 139 of 2018 in SC No'7Oon the lile o[ the} Iearned trial^{Court, referred supra'}

¶37

2.HeardSriG'L.NarasimhaRao,learnedcounselforthe petitioner in^{both the matters and Sri YizarathAli' learned Assistant} Public^{Prosecutorfor the} Public Prosecutoi^{representinglearned} State / responden t.^{Perused the record'}

¶38

Since the^{parties to these two applications are one and the} same and^{the questions involvedthereinare interrelated' this Court is} inclineE! to disPose^{of the same bY way of this common order'}

¶39

l'age 2 of6

¶40

The petitioner^{was arrayed as accused No'2 inCrime} No.139 of 2)lg^{registered for the offencespunishableunder Section} 3O2 read with^{Section34, Section120-8 read with Section 1O9 of} Indian Penal^{code (for short'IPC',) and Sections 3(2)(v)of sc/sT(POA)} Act, 2015 and^{Section 25(lA)and 27 (31 of Indian Arms Act' 1959 along} with other accused^{alteging that he committed culpable homicideout of} a contract taken^{from accused No 1, who fett humiliation due to love} a marriage of his claughter^{againsthis wish with the deceased'} Scheduled Caste person.^{Aspcr orders dated17 .O1.2O79in} Crl.M.P.No. 12 of^{2Ol9 inCrime} No.139 of 2O18^{of Police Station,} Miryalguda I^{Town, learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases} under ST/ST(POA)^{Act, Nalgonda has grantedmandatory bail to the} petitioner under^{Section 167(21 of Cr'P'C' due to non-filing of charge-} sheet within^{the mandatoryperiodof 9O days with specifrcconditions'} As a part of^{complianceof the bait order conditions'the petitioner} should not involve^{hrmsclf in any criminal activity which he is alleged} to have committed^{in the presentcrime, more particularly forthe} offence of murder^{or any other crime of what so ever nature' The} petitioner due to^{incapabitityof securing sureties'approachedthis} Court and this^{Court vide orderd'ated22'08'2019in CriminalPetition} No.4835ot2Olg,reducedthesuretyamountfromRs'10'00'OO0/-to Rs.2,oO,ooO/-/

¶41

Page 3 o[ 6

¶42

-7

¶43

White the things^{stood thus, contraryto thesaid} conditions,^{on 03.12.2O2owhen the proceedingsin lespect of SC No 70} of 2019, arising^{out of CrimeNo. 139 of 2o18 were goingon' being an} under-trial^{prisoner, the petitioner misbehavedinthe open Court'} picked up^{quarrel u'ith accusedNo'6 and slappedon his face in the} presence of the^{learned PresidingOflicer and other Courtstalf'} litigants, police, advocates^{etc.,accordingly,Crime in FIR No 272 of} 2O2O for the^{offen<:espunishableunder Sections 341} '^{358' 323 and} 29O of IPC^{rvas registeredby the police of Nalgondaagainstthe} petitioner and^{after investigation CC No'65 of 2021 was registered and} the learned^{Principal Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile Court)-cum-Judicial} Magistrate of^{First Class at Nalgonda, aJter considering the evidence in} the form of^{PWs. ito 72 and Exs'Pl to P5, found the petitionerguilty} for the offences^{\r'ith which he was charge-sheeted'}

¶44

In that view^{of the matter,the prosecutionmade an} application^{beforethe learnedCourtbelow vide Crl'MPNo 4l7 ol 2O2l} seeking to cancel^{the bail granted to the petition er on 17 'OI '2019 vide} orders in Crl.MP^{No. 12 of 2Ol9 in SC No'7O of 2Ol9' arising out of} Crime No.I39^{of 20 l8 complaininghis disobediencetowardsthe bail} order conditions.^{The learned court below, upon hearingboth sides} and tafing^{into consideration the misbehaviourof the petitioner' which}

¶45

Page^.l of 6

¶46

was proved beyond reasonable doubt vide judgment d,ated 24.O3.2O22 in CC No.65 of 2021, cancelled the bail already granted to the petitioner.

¶47

. 7 . Assailing the said order dated I3.OZ .2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4l7 of 2021, the peritioner filed Criminal petition No.6244 of 2023 seeking to quash/sct aside the same and also hled Criminal Petition No.8513 of 2023 seeking his enlargement on bail in SC No.70 of 2Ol9 on the hle of the Court bclow mainly contending that when he was in search of finding sureties to comply with the bail order conditions, the police with a malahde intention to see that he will be confined to incarceration, cooked up the case in CC No.65 of 2O2l on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile Court)cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nalgonda and could able to succeed in getting conviction against him without there being any complicity on his part and basing on the said judgment, they got carcelled the bail granted to him. He further contended that he is in depressed state due to his inability in getting sufficient sureties to comply with the bail order conditions and his languishment in incarceration and hence, a misunderstanding with accused No.6 was portrayed as a quarrel and implicated him in the said case. He also contended that he has to look after his old aged and ill-health father.

I'age 5 o[6

I t

This court^{perused the entirematerizll availableon record} including^{the impugned order and various orders rejecting the prayer of} the petitioner^{for enlarginghim on bail As seenfrom the record' this is} the Sth^{attempt of the petitionerto get bail' His previousapplications} were dismissed^{in viewof his disobedience towardsthe lawfulordersof} these two^{cases,the petitioneris also an} the Court.^{APart from} of 2O11 for^{the offence punishableunder} accused in^{Crime No 6O} Sections^{395 ol IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act on the hle of} Rajahmundry^{I town Police Station'He is an accused in SC No'7O of} 2019 facing^{charges on the allegation of committing culpable homicide} and even^{he failed to get the sureties' It is also pertinent to note that} the petitioner^{wasgranted mandatory bait' In spiteof such situation'} he misbehaved^{with the accusedNo 6 and slapped him in the open} Court before^{the learned Presiding Officer and othersAccordingly'} after full-fledged^{trial and giving ample opportunityto the petitioner'} the concerned^{Court found him guilty' The contention of the petitioner} that he^{was falsely implicatedin the case to deny his chances of} releasing from^{jailcannotbe accepted as he was given ample} opportunity^{beforethe Court concernedto defendhimself but having} the petitioner^{is trying take} faited to do^{so beforethe Courtbelow'} this Court,^{which isnot} shelter under^{such contentionbefore} It is also^{an admitted fact that the petitioner is a native of} permissible

¶53

Page 6 of6

¶54

Bihar State and in case he^jumped on bail, the possibility of getting his presence for the purpose o[ the present case secms to be too remote in view of his criminal antecedents and that his threa[ening the witnesses causing hindrance to the trial cannot be rulcd out.

¶55

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by taking into consideration his criminal antecedents and disobedience towards lawful orders of the Court below. The said findings are sustained and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the prayer of made by the petitioner in both the criminal petitions to grant him bail and set aside the order under which his bail was cancelled are hereby rejected.

¶56

In the result, Crl.P.Nos.8S13 of 2O23 and 6244 of 2023 are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications. if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. 't

¶57

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

C, dL

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 . The Special^{SessionsJudge of SC/ST (POA) Act cases-cum-Additional} District^{Judgeat Nalgonda.}

¶62

z. in" dtrtioi^{HousJofficer, Miryatguda-l Town Police Station'Nalgonda} District.

¶63

;; ac"^{to the publicprosecutor, High court for the state of relanganaat} Hvderabad.

¶64

4 d; cc i; sRl. c^{L NARASIMHARAo, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶65

Two CD^Copies

pr N s * '<sup>K (n

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0311012023

ORDER CRLP.No.6244 AND 8513 0F 2023

¶70

1tr E STAI€
k
,?
O 0 4 JIN ?[2[ o
+
* oE.s PA1/-

¶71

DISMISSING BOTH

¶72

THE CRL.PETITION'S

¶73

T x

Subash Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Kumar Sharma 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

Pottu Thirupathi , Thirupathi Reddy Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and 17 Others

Holista Transzworld Ltd., Chennai and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Proddaturi Ravinder, R.R.Dist. Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Challa Veman Reddy Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, Vs The State of A.P. through P.S. Nagireddypet

V.Madan, S/o.Late v.Jaihind Rao Vs The State of Telangana.