offences under sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 324, 504, 506 and 353 read with 149 of IPC and section 4 of the A.P. Medicare service (Damage to property) Act, 2008.= The names of the petitioners find place in First Information Report as the persons responsible for causing injuries to LW.6-Kumari Vandera Jyothi and damaging the equipment in the hospital. Such is the accusation levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1292 of 2013

O R D E R:-

          The petitioners are A.1 to A-3 in Cr.No.115 of 2012 of Narayanpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences under sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 324, 504, 506 and 353 read with 149 of IPC and section 4 of the A.P. Medicare service (Damage to property) Act, 2008.
          The accusation made against the petitioners is that they, along with other accused, attacked the staff of Raghavendra Nursing Home and caused bleeding injuries to LW.6-Kumari Vandera Jyothi, apart from damaging the hospital equipment, on the ground that Boya Narsimulu was not given treatment promptly.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
          It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the offences with which they are accused of and therefore they deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
          Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed application on the ground that investigation is pending and the names of the petitioners find place in the First Information Report as the persons responsible for causing bleeding injuries to LW.6-Kumari Vandera Jyothi and damaging the hospital equipment and therefore they do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
          I have gone through the remand case diary dated 21.01.2013, copy of which finds place at Page No.6 of the material papers.  The names of the petitioners find place in First Information Report as the persons responsible for causing injuries to LW.6-Kumari Vandera Jyothi and damaging the equipment in the hospital.  Such is the accusation levelled against the petitioners, they do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
          Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.


_________________________
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J
25th February, 2013.
Sr/vjl

                         

                         


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

Criminal Petition No.1292 of 2013

                         


                         

                         

                         

                         

                        sr/vjl                             February 25, 2013




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.