Ch. Rajashekar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ch. Rajashekar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.06.2023 of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, cancelling the petitioner's bail (Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2020 in Crime No.527 of 2020), is illegal and liable to be quashed/suspended. +1 more

Court's answer

Registration of a subsequent case for similar offences showed that the petitioner/accused violated the bail condition of non-interference in the process of investigation, and after release on bail he attempted an axe attack and was caught by the police; consequently there were no illegalities or infirmities in the order dated 21.06.2023 cancelling the bail.

Ratio / Principle

The record of the cancellation petition showed that notice was given to the petitioner/accused though he did not appear, and the trial Court nevertheless discussed the matter at length; hence the grievance that bail was cancelled 'without notice' did not stand.

Key takeaways

There were no merits in the criminal petition and it was liable to be dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail cancellation upheld: the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Smt Justice K. Sujana, single judge, 03.03.2025) dismissed Criminal Petition No.7681 of 2024, filed by Ch. Rajashekar under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.06.2023 of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally cancelling his bail in Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2020 in Crime No.527 of 2020 (case under Section 307 IPC). Although counsel argued that bail was cancelled without notice and that the complaints were malicious, the Court noted the record showed notice was given though the petitioner/accused did not appear; that registration of a subsequent case for similar offences evidenced violation of the condition of non-interference in the investigation; and that after release on bail the petitioner attempted an axe attack and was caught by police. Finding no illegalities, infirmities or merits, the Court dismissed the petition; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

[³³⁸⁵ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7681 OF 2 024

Between:

Ch. Rajashekar, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Aged 50 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-294i 1/D, Plot No. 76, Venkateshwara Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused

AND

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

S. Raman, S/o. Subbier, Age 64 Yrs., Occu. Prop of Market Services, H.No. 2-108, Pipeline Road, Fathenaar, Hyderabad 500 0jS.

... Respondents

Petition under Section 482 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 call the records in Crl.M.P.No.'175 of 2023 in Crl.M.p.No.795 of 2020 in Cr. No. 527 of 2020 on the file of tl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, li/ledchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally and euash/Suspend the same against the petitioner holding that which is illegal

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 482 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 stay of all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.M.p. No. 175 of 2023 in Crl.M.P. No. 795 of 2020 in Cr.No. 527 ot 2O2O on the file of llAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V Subba Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

I

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA}

CRIMINAL^{PETITION No'7681of 2o24}

ORDER:

This Criminal^{Petition is filedchallenging the order dated} 21.06.2023^{passedin Crl'MP'No' 175 of 2023 in Crl'M'P'No'795 of} 2o2o\nCrimeNo.52Tof2o2obythelearnedllAdditional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge' Medchal-Malkajgiriat Kukatpally'}

2.HeardSriK.VenkatReddy,learnedcounselappearingon behalf^{of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed YasarMamoon' learned} behall^ofthe Additional^{Public Prosecutor} appearing^on State and^Sri V. Subba^Rao' learned^counsel respondent appearing^{on behalf of respondentNo'2'}

Learned^{counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the} petitioner^{was accusedof attempting to kill the 2'd respondent on} December^{20, '2O2O, and a casewas registeredunder Section 307} of the IPC^{and that the petitionerwas granted bail on December9'} 2O2O, with^{conditions' He further submittedthat the 2"d} respondent^{frled another complaint on September 2' 2022 ' alleging} that the petitioner^{attempted to kill him again and thatthe} November 3,²⁰²² '^He petitioner^{wzrs granted bail agatn on} contended^{that the trial Courtcancelledthe baii petltion of the}

2

sKs,J Crl.P-No.7681 of 2024

petitioner without notice, which is deemed unjust. He further contended that the complaints are malicious and intended to harass him, and prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, respectively, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and that as the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions, earlier as well, the trial Court rightly cancelled the bail perition. Therefore, he prayed the Court dismiss the criminal petition.

Having regard to the rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that in the cancellation of bail petition filed before the triat Court, it is mentioned that though notice was given to petitioner/accused, he has not appeared before the Court, however, though the petitioner/accused was not present, the trial Court had discussed the matter at length and observed that registration of subsequent case for the similar offences would show that the petitioner/accused has violated the condition imposed by the trial Court with regard to not interfering in the process of investigation. Further, the petitioner/accused has also attempted to attack the

I
<br>

3

SKS,J Crl.P,No.768l of2024

l

petitioner with an axe after being released on bail and at rhat time the police *,ho were going by that side, caught the petitioner/ accu sed , as such, case was registered. Therelore, this Court is of the firm view that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the order dated 21.06.2O23 passed in Crl.Mp.No. ITS ol 2023 in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2O2O in Crime No.S27 of 2O2O by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, and there are no merits in this criminar petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6 Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissecl

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed

Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The ll Additional^{lvletropolitanSessions Judge, Medchal-Malka.igiri at} KukatPallY

The Siation House^{Officer, Sanath nagar Police Station' cyberabad}

3'TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

. One CC to^{Sri venxat Reddy Kodumury, Advocate[OPUC]}

One CC to^{Sri V Subha Rao,Advocate[OPUC]}

Two CD CoPies

ADK/gh

tn-

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:031031202s

ORDER

CRLP.No.768'n of 2024

1HE S r4p €
(
ia
\
,-) 2 5 APrl 2025 :
.. -,,. j t
?,!.',,,'.

DISMISSING THE CRLP
( A
t.r (r. 1)