Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Salike v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2024CRLP/726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising from a complaint by a railway contractor alleging abuse, threats and later rape charges against a Chief Commercial Inspector. The court found the allegations serious, including threats regarding videos of the victim, and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; criminal petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Santosh Kumar Salike Vs The State of Telangana — Anticipatory Bail | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

MgI?{Y,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENI'Y Fb"U'ii'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RAN]

¶5

CRIMI NAL PETITtoN NO:726 0F 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Govt

¶8

3?[?i [ 5iH Sfl [::,:1? I,Jsil ?tr .."?,l;i]ffi 3.:J. J33f o*

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETtTtoNER/ACCusED(S)

¶11

The State of Telano .ruoiciiu,eiolSi:i'Ji??"[?i,i,i,'N,?i?!",5J5:cutorHishcourtor

¶12

Mohd. parveen. D/o

¶13

a o - r o-z rl' si,il# t I ii:#:,{3ii8[0,r:w11#??!,i, occ^pvt E m p royee R io

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

. .^{Petition under Section} 43g of Cr.p.C oravin i^{f ;:: Jl"f ?" Y:,H:iiil} o r c,.o, n o. o r ;', ffi'i l''" iff : ; i r'i:d[" g;f H:; ffi :ffi ir;i",x?ffi :#f, "7ff "[J,,'#.;i#Ti'hv;,'rii%ffi tJ,T:fl o"?lJil,Tl[^":^til lu".inn'^{upon perusins the Memorandum} or o., "JJi, Iff"i:;#:ffi1'.'""..ffi^{,T"Ti;ilff ,1'Jffi} [g,:lll

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

Ttlli HON'Bt.ll Dr. JUSTICE G.^{RADHA RANI}

¶18

CITIMINAI, PETI'tION No.726 OF²⁰²⁴

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This criminal petition is tiled by the^{petitioner-Accusedunder} Section 4i8 Cr.t'}.Cl. lbr glanL of anticipatory^{bail to him in Crirne} No.i70 ot'1023 on lhe flle of the Station llouse^{Officer, Gopalapuram} Police Station. I lyderabacl, registered lbr the offences^{under Sections} 506 and 509 IPC initialll and latcr Section 376^{IPC also added.}

¶21

l-he casc ol t[-rc prosecution in brief^{was tl-rat on} 24.1 I 2023 at I .00 PM. the victitn u,<ltnan,^{whowas working as an} out-sourcing contractor at Nanrpally Railway^{Station,[{yderabad} lodgcd a rcport against the pctitioncr hcrcin,^{whowas working asa} Cl-rief C'omrncrcial Itrspector at [(ailway^{SanchalanBhavan,} Secundelabad, stating that thc petitioncr^{had provided the} cornplainant with contlactor -iob at clock room^{in Nampally Railway} Station. On 21. t 1.202i at 5.00 PM,^{when the de facto complainant} went to thc l{ailu,ay Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad^{to tneetthe} pelitioncr to ask abor-rt het'tendct atrount as^{shewas not getting her} amount properly. thc^{pctitionelabuscd her in fitthy languageand} threatened her to lcave liotn thcre. I)ue to^{agony, she swallowed 20}

¶22

D.-CRR. t (.1.P. \o.7)i ol :0)t

¶23

paracetalnol tablets, which r.r cr-e itr hcr Itanci baq riuc to which she l'ell uttconscious. l.ater, shc cartre lo knori that slrc^,,r as admitted in Gandhi Ilospital lor trcarrrcnt. [3asing orr thc said rcporl, thc Sublnspector of Policc, (iopalapurarrt rcsistcled a casc initially under Sections 506 and 509 IPC arrd subsecluentlr'. adclccl thc section of law Section 376lPC and lilcd a llcrno bclirlc rhe Courr

¶24

Hcard thc learncd courrsel lirr thc petitioner and the lcarned Additional l)u blic I)roset:utor

¶25

I-carned courlscl l'or thc pctitiorrcl suL.rnrirtcci that the dc facto cornplainant fllcd thc prcscrrt ,:onrplaint onlv u ith an ulterior nlotlvc [o halass thc petitioncr'. ihc irct itiorrr:' s rr ifL' lrad infact llle<l a cornplaint orr 2.j. | 1.203-i ag:.rirtst. iltc clc Ilrcto c<rrrritlainzir-r1 lbr cxtortion and thc de li-rcto corrrplairnrrt lilcd thc pt.cscnt contplaint as a counter blast to the said cornplainl. lhc police harl nor rcgistcred the FIR against thc de lacto c(-ltllplainir!ri. birr had r.cgistc:.ccl the pr.csent FIR against tl-rc pctitioncr onll to trarass lrirn. Ilrc dispLrtc was purely civil in nature. lf any amourrts \vcrc not paid to hcr. she or-rght to have pursued her renrcdies against thc clcpartmcnt bv irrstittrtins a civil suit lor recovery o{'nroncy. I'hc ;tctitioner' \ras n()[ haline the powcr to

¶26

¶27

DT.GRR.J C.t.P.^No.726oI2024

¶28

¶29

award the^{contract to the de lhcto corl-rplainant' No amountscouldbe} paid physicalty.^{Thc entire transactions werernade onlineand prayed} to grant^{anticipatory bail to thc petitioner'}

¶30

The lcar-rrcd^{Additional Public Plosecutor opposed grant} of anticipatory^{bail to thc Petitioncr as Section 376 IPC was also} included^{subsequentll'on thc statementgiven by the victim'}

¶31

Pcrusccl^{the rccord'('onsidcrirrgthe allegations made} against thc^{petititlncr heleiu at'rd that thc petitionerwas also} threirtening^{the victirn tl'rat thc vidcos of the victim were in his} possession^{as pcr thc IurtltcIstatcntcntgivcrr by the victim'it is} considered^{not a llt casc to srantirnticipatory-bail to the petitiorrcra1}

¶32

thii stage.

¶33

In tlrc rcstrlt.^{thc ('rirlrirllrl l'etition is dismissed'}

¶34

Miscellancor'ts^{applications'i I' arri" pending' shalIstand closed'}

¶35

SHA A GIST '"'"SEiUIfSPHH

/TTRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

l.ThexAddl.ChiefMetroplotanMagistrateatSecunderabad.' 2. The^{SHO Gopalapuram Police Station' Secunderabad' Hyderabad} 3. One^{CC to SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIRI Advocate [OPUCI} 4. One^{CCto PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate IOPUCI}

¶40

Two^{CD CoPies} "-V,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212024

CRLP.No.726 of 2024

1 gE SI47 €
v2
j Iz Apn zoz{ O
+t
*
.a6.sPATcYr Ew

¶46

DISMISSED

Santosh Kumar Salike v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Salike 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

Ramesh Chand Vs Smt. Leelavathi Bai Agarwal

Yadurla Chenna Reddy Vs Yedurla Jogi Reddy

Syeda Shahenaz Vs Mohammed Kazamuddin

Uduthala Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Hamza Bin Omer Vs The State of Telangana

B. Rama Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana