seeking to modify the conditions imposed on them in the bail order,= the Court below, while granting bail to the petitioners, imposed the conditions of execution of a self bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two local sureties for the like sum each supported by the original sale deeds to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty and to co-operate with the trial of the case in the trial Court and in case of their default in the trial Court, the property offered by them through their sale deeds would be forfeited in favour of the State;= as the petitioners are coolies and are not in a position to comply with the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the conditions imposed in the bail order, dated 23.5.2016, in Crl.M.P.No.635 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District are hereby set aside and the conditions in the impugned order are modified as under: The petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-8 are ordered to be released on bail on their execution of a self bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty and the petitioners are directed to report before the Station House Officer concerned daily between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. for a period of fifteen (15) days.

CRLP 7622 / 2016
CRLPSR 24115 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
CHINNAPPAYAN JAYARAM AND 3 OTHERS  VSTHE STATE OF A.P.,REP,.PP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7622 of 2016 
ORDER: 
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A- 4 and A-8 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to modify the conditions imposed on them in the bail order, dated 23.5.2016, in Crl.M.P.No.635 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District and enlarge them on bail in Crime No.17 of 2016 of Chinnamandem Police Station, Kadapa District. 2. Heard and perused the material available on record. 
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below, while granting bail to the petitioners, imposed the conditions of execution of a self bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two local sureties for the like sum each supported by the original sale deeds to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty and to co-operate with the trial of the case in the trial Court and in case of their default in the trial Court, the property offered by them through their sale deeds would be forfeited in favour of the State; that the petitioners are working as coolies in their respective villages and hence, they are not in a position to execute the bond for Rs.50,000/- each; that the petitioners were arrested on 13.3.2016 and since then, they are in prison and hence, he prays to modify the said conditions. 
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioners are coolies and are not in a position to comply with the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the conditions imposed in the bail order, dated 23.5.2016, in Crl.M.P.No.635 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District are hereby set aside and the conditions in the impugned order are modified as under: The petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-8 are ordered to be released on bail on their execution of a self bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty and the petitioners are directed to report before the Station House Officer concerned daily between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. for a period of fifteen (15) days. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date: 14.6.2016 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7622 of 2016 DATE: 14.6.2016 AMD

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