seeking return of his passport by relaxation of the bail conditions. = As regards the apprehension of the Court below that the petitioner may abscond, it would be sufficient if the petitioner is asked to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to guarantee his return. The condition imposed by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in his order, dt.10.10.2012 in Crl.M.P. No.4170 of 2012 with regard to deposit of the original passport in the Court shall stand relaxed till the return of the petitioner from Dubai in April, 2013. The passport shall be released to the petitioner upon his furnishing the guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The petitioner, upon his return from Dubai, shall redeposit the original passport in Court. Upon such deposit of the passport by the petitioner, the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), shall be returned to him.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.218 OF 2013


10.1.2013

K. GOPALAKRISHNA                                      …                 PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF A.P.
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF A.P.
HYDERABAD                                        …                  RESPONDENT



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.218 OF 2013

ORDER:

          The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.70 of 2008 on the file of Ramgopalpet Police Station, who was granted regular bail by order dt.10.10.2012, in Crl. M.P. No.4170 of 2012, by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.  
One of the conditions imposed while granting him bail was that he should deposit his original passport in Court.
          It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter is due for delivery on 3.2.2013 and that she is residing in Dubai.  
He proposes to visit her along with his wife.  
For this reason, he moved Crl.M.P. No.5039 of 2012 before the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, seeking return of his passport by relaxation of the bail conditions.  
However, by order dt.22.12.2012, the Sessions Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition apprehending that the petitioner/accused No.3 may not return to India as he did not even mention as to the approximate period that he wanted to remain in Dubai.  This aspect is, however, not borne out by the record.  
The petitioner has placed on record his return ticket which indicates that he would be returning from Dubai on 14.4.2013.  
As regards the apprehension of the Court below that the petitioner may abscond, it would be sufficient if the petitioner is asked to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to guarantee his return.  
The condition imposed by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in his order, dt.10.10.2012 in Crl.M.P. No.4170 of 2012 with regard to deposit of the original passport in the Court shall stand relaxed till the return of the petitioner from Dubai in April, 2013.  
The passport shall be released to the petitioner upon his furnishing the  guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).  
The petitioner, upon his return from Dubai, shall redeposit the original passport in Court.  Upon such deposit of the passport by the petitioner, the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), shall be returned to him.
          The criminal petition stands disposed of. 

_____________________
                                                                   SANJAY KUMAR, J
10.1.2013
bnr
Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow.
            (B.O)
             bnr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.