Appa Pandranga Pawar Vs The State of Telangana

Shubham Ashok Pawar @^{Dilshar,S/o Ashok Aged about 25 years,Occ.} Farmer, Rl/o. Saraswathi Nagar, lndapur, Puna District, Maharashtra State, N/o. DudoMi (V), Kharjath Taluka, Ahemd Nagar District, Maharashtra State

¶10

...PETTTTONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, through SHO P.S. Abdullapurmet Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 437143814391482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased toto enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 herein on bail in S.C. No. 71012024^(PS Adbullapurmet), Xl Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum Addl. Metropolitan Session Judge, L.b.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District., on such condition or conditions and^pass

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^M PHANINDRA BHARGAV ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7790 of 2025

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is frled under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatlya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for shorr^'BNSS') seeking bail to the petitioners/accused Nos. | & 2 in S.C. No.7l0 ol 2024 on the file of the XI Additional District and SessLons Judgecum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District ( Crime No.368 of 2024 ol' PS Abdullapunnet, Rachkonda District), registered fbr thc off'ences punishable under Sections 109, l2l (2) r/rv 5 (i) of tlrc []haratiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNS').

¶20

The case of prosecution in briel is that on 05.07.2024 at l5:00 hours, a complaint was received tiom Head Constablc otChityala Police Station, Nalgonda District, stating that he along with his staff had been engaged in highway patrolling duties sincc 09.06.2024 to detect thefts. On the morning ol 05.07.2024. they received credible information about I')ardhi Gang ofl-entlers, rvhich was relayed to their superiors belbre proceeding tou'arcl Ftyderabad. At Kotfuagudem Villagc, Abdullapurruet Mantlal. thcy

¶21

2

¶22

spotted two suspects boarding^{a Mini Van (AP-29-TV-6433) and} followed them. Upon intercepting the^{vehiclenear ORRopposite} Sampoorna Hotel around 09:00 houls, the suspects^{resisted arrest} and attacked with a screwdriver and scissors,^{attempting to kill the} officers. In defense, Head Constable^{flred two rounds in the air,} enabling them to apprehend the offienders.^{The suspects were taken} into custody and brought to Chityata^{Police Station with the seized} weapons. Basing on this, the^{presentcritnc was registered.}

¶23

Heard Mr. M. Phanindra Bhargav,^{learnedcounsel for the} petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned^{AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶24

karned counsel tbr the petitioncr^{submitted thatthe} petitioner has not comntittcd the ol'l'cnce^{and he was falsely} implicated in the above crime.^{He lurthcr submitted that the} investigating officer aficr conducting^{investigationfiled charge} sheet before the learned Sessions^{.ludge and the same was} numbered as S.C.No.7l0 ol'2024^{and in thc said case, seven} witnesses were already exarnined. The rlain^{rvitncsses,LWs 1 to 3,} neither supported the prosccution ttor tttadc any^{allegationsagainst}

¶25

FF-.r

¶26

3

¶27

the petitioner. I{ence, the^{petitioners are entitled for grant ol bail.} He lurther submitted that^{petitioner No.l/accusedNo.l is eking out} his livelihood by doing labour work^{and petitionerNo.2/accused} No.2 by doing agriculture work. He^{furthersubrnitted that} petitioners are ready and willing to appear^{before the concerned} Court on each and every adjoumment^{to prosecute the proceedings} and also ready to abide by the conditions,^{which are going to be} imposed by this Court and hence,^{prayed for grant ofbarl.}

¶28

Per conlra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor^submitted that the petitioners have committed^{grave offences and thereare} specific altegations are levelled against^{the petitioners to attrilct the} ingredients under Section 109 of^{BNS.He further subnrittedthat} accused Nos. I and 2 are having criminal antecedents^{and tlley rverc} accused in J I cases. He further submitted^{that out of I irvitnesses,} seve n witnesses were already examined and^{the mattcr is conring} up lbr Iurther evidence and if the petitioners are^{grantecl lrail at this} stage, they may tamper with the evidence and^{may threatenthe} witncsses, and hence, prayed to dismiss the^petition.

¶29

4

¶30

Having considered the lival submissions rnadc by the

¶31

respective parties and a{ler perusal of the rnaterial available on record, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant Crime No.368 of 2024 was registered on 05.07.2024 and the petitioners were remanded to^judicial custody on 06.07.2024 and since then they are in^judicial custody. The record further reveals that after conducting invcstigation, the investigating offrcer filed the charge sheet on 22.07.2024 within the stipulated time, before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was numbered as S.C.No.7l0 of 2024. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, petitioncrs arc accused in several other crimes. It is also relevant to place on recot'd that the Hon'ble Apex Court iL X v. Stute of Rajosthan antl another^/, specifically held that once the trial commences anci thc prosecution stafts examining its witnesses, the Courl be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining thc bait application of, the accused. In the case on hand, out of li witnesses, 7 witncsses were already examined and Sessions Case is coming lbr turlher evidence of the other witnesses.

¶32

'^slt lcri.ir,utifrolfllzg^orzo:a

¶33

5

¶34

Taking into consideration the^{facts and circumstancesof the}

¶35

case and also in^view of^{the principlelaid downby the Hon'ble} Supreme Court, this^{Courtis of the consideredview that it is not a} fit case to grant bail to the^{petitioners/accused Nos.land 2, at this} stage, especially investigation^{is underprogress. However, the trial} Court is directed to^{conclude the trial and decide the rnatteron} merits, as expeditiously^{as possible,preferablywithin a periodof}

¶36

lour (4) weeks from the date ofreceipt^{ofa copy ofthis order.}

¶37

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition^{is dismissed.}

¶38

Miscellaneous applications,^{pending if any, shall stand}

¶39

closed

¶40

SD/. K.BHAVANI^SWAMY A NT R EG ST RAR //TRUE @PY'l SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The State of^{Telansana, through SHOP.S' Abdullapurmgt} lep^by its^{puuiic prosecut6r,High colrt of Judicature at HyderabadFor} the State of Telangana.^{at Hyderabad.}

¶43