Partly allowed - Direction to lower court to release on bail the 2nd petitioner against whom anticipatory bail is granted -Anticipatory bail = Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. The 2nd petitioner, who is A3, is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur,YSR Kadapa District, within two weeks from today. On such surrender, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur shall enlarge the 2nd petitioner/A3 on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur.


CRLP 4754 / 2013CRLPSR 15505 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
ITTA BHULAKSHMI DEVI, YSR KADAPA & ANR.,  VSSTATE OF AP., REP. PP., HYD.,
PET.ADV. : ROOPESH KUMAR REDDYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.438 Cr.p.c Anticipatory BailDISTRICT:  CUDDAPAH
published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/crlp/crlp_4754_2013.html



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD


MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN
: PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: K.G.SHANKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4754 of 2013

Between:
  1. Itta Bhulakshmi Devi, W/o. Guruswamy
  2. Pujari Veeramma, W/o. Pedda Subbanna
…Petitioners
                                       (Accused 2 & 3 in Cr.No. 72/2013
                 of II Town P.S. Proddatur Town,
                        YSR Kadapa Dist)

AND


The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
                                    … Respondent/Complainant

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 & 3 on bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No. 72/2013 of II Town Police Station, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District.

            The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following

ORDER:

“ The petitioners are A2 and A3.  They seek for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.72 of 2013 on the file of II Town Police Station, Proddatur.  
            While Crime No.72 of 2013 is in respect of offences under Sections 353, 354 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C., there cannot be an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. against the petitioners, who are women.   The rest of the offences are triable by Magistrate of First Class.  Consequently, it is more appropriate for the petitioners to  surrender before the Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and move an application for grant of regular bail.   However, the 2nd petitioner is 65 years old.  In view of the age of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the 2nd petitioner, who is A3, on anticipatory bail.  So far as 1st petitioner, who is A2, is concerned, I deem it appropriate to dismiss the application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for grant of regular bail.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. The 2nd petitioner, who is A3, is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur,YSR Kadapa District, within two weeks from today.  On such surrender, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur shall enlarge the 2nd petitioner/A3 on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur.

















                                                            ..2..



The anticipatory bail application of the 1st petitioner/A2 is dismissed.   The 1st petitioner/A2 may surrender before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and move an application for grant of regular bail.  In such an event, the learned Judge shall consider the bail application of the 1st petitioner/A2 and dispose of the same on the same day on which it is filed.”



           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY  //
 for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To

  1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.
  2. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.
  3. The SHO, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.
  4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyd(OUT)
  5. One CC to Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)
  6. One spare copy.

SAH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
  




      
   


  
































HIGH COURT





  




KGSJ







  

DATED: 03-06-2013

           







ORDER


CRL.P.NO. 4754 OF 2013







ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
PETITIONER NO.2
























DRAFTED BY: SAH

APPROVED BY:  
DRAFTED ON: 04-06-2013
  
HIGH COURT





  




KGSJ







  

DATED: 03-06-2013

           







ORDER


CRL.P.NO. 4754 OF 2013







ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
PETITIONER NO.2


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.

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.

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