Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused, even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police. However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the allegations and cancelled the bail in a posthaste manner. In the considered view of this Court, the lower Court ought to have directed concerned police to complete the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014 expeditiously and basing on the result of the investigation it ought to have passed an appropriate order regarding cancellation of bail. By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld. Therefore, to protect the personal liberty of accused on one hand and the right of fair investigation and fair trial to the complainant in Cr.No.435 of 2014 on the other, this Court passed the following order. 1) The impugned order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2014 is set aside and the accused are directed to be on bail. 2) In Cr.No.705 of 2014, the concerned police are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file report within three(3) months from the date of this order. Till such time the accused are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Pahadishareef police station on every day and sign in the book opened by SHO for this purpose. The accused shall take the prior permission of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for non-compliance of aforesaid direction due to any valid reason. 3) Depending on the result of the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014, the defacto complainant is at liberty to move the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancellation of bail of the accused, in which case, the said Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits. Accordingly this Criminal Petition is allowed.- 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC.
Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1.
The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration.
It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.
 However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the allegations and cancelled the bail in a posthaste manner.
 In the considered view of this Court, the lower Court ought to have directed concerned police to complete the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014 expeditiously and basing on the result of the investigation it ought to have passed an appropriate order regarding cancellation of bail. By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.
Therefore, to protect the personal liberty of accused on one hand and the right of fair investigation and fair trial to the complainant in Cr.No.435 of 2014 on the other, this Court passed the following order.
 1)      The impugned order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2014 is set aside and the accused are directed to be on bail.
2)      In Cr.No.705 of 2014, the concerned police are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file report within three(3) months from the date of this order. Till such time the accused are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Pahadishareef police station on every day and sign in the book opened by SHO for this purpose. The accused shall take the prior permission of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for non-compliance of aforesaid direction due to any valid reason.
3)      Depending on the result of the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014, the defacto complainant is at liberty to move the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancellation of bail of the accused, in which case, the said Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits.
 Accordingly this Criminal Petition is allowed.- 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS


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.