the offences under sections 196, 209, 210, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 read with 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. The accusation made against the petitioners is that they fabricated the sale deed dated 18.05.1996 and obtained loans from various banks. Thereafter, Smt Geeta Santosh (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013) executed a sale deed in favour of Jr.N.T.Ramarao on 15.10.2003 suppressing the earlier encumbrances and thereby cheated the purchaser Jr. N.T.Ramarao. - Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013 is allowed. The petitioner Smt Geeta Santosh is directed to surrender herself before the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad within a week, and on such surrender, she shall be released on bail on her executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the same Station House Officer, and on further condition that she shall appear before the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad once in a week i.e., on every Saturday in between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, for a period of four weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. The Criminal Petition No.976 of 2013 is dismissed.


CRLP 972 / 2013CRLPSR 3488 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SMT.GEETA SANTOSH, HIMAYATHNAGAR.,  VSSTATE OF AP., REP. BY PP., HYD.,
PET.ADV. : SRINIVASA REDDYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.438 Cr.p.c Anticipatory BailDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition Nos.972 and 976 of 2013

C O M M O N - O R D E R:-

            The petitioners apprehend arrest in Cr.No.185 of 2012 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under sections 196, 209, 210, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 read with 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. 
The accusation made against the petitioners is that they fabricated the sale deed dated 18.05.1996 and obtained loans from various banks. Thereafter, Smt Geeta Santosh (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013) executed a sale deed in favour of Jr.N.T.Ramarao on 15.10.2003 suppressing the earlier encumbrances and thereby cheated the purchaser Jr. N.T.Ramarao.
          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 petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them and therefore they deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.  A further contention has been advanced that the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013 never deposited the title deeds of her house plot in any of the banks.
          Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the applications on the ground that investigation done so far revealed that the petitioner in Criminal petition No.976 of 2013 namely Sri S. Vishnu Charan is the person responsible for raising loans from various banks by depositing the duplicate title deeds and therefore he does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
          I have gone through the case dairy placed on record.  The principal accusations are made against Sri S. Vishnu Charan who is petitioner in Criminal Petition No.976 of 2013, with regard to fabrication of the sale deed dated 18.05.1996.  In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.976 of 2013.
          The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013 namely
Smt Geeta Santosh has asserted that she never appeared before any of the financial institutions and offered the house plot as security for the loan availed by Usha Gautami Batteries,  Sunku Auto Limited, Surya Harsha enterprises and Usha Gautami enterprises.  In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013 on certain conditions.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.972 of 2013 is allowed.  The petitioner Smt Geeta Santosh is directed to surrender herself before the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad within a week, and on such surrender, she shall be released on bail on her executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the same Station House Officer, and on further condition that she shall appear before the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad once in a week i.e., on every Saturday in between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, for a period of four weeks or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.
The Criminal Petition No.976 of 2013 is dismissed.


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

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.