Sri. B. Sathaiah

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 1 of 7

IN THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND

DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt.J.Maithreyi, I Additional Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

Friday the 21st day of April 2023

SC (POCSO) No. 97 of 2021

Name of the ComplainantState represented by Sub Inspector of Police, RPS Mancherial

Name of the AccusedChidambaram-V S/o Vinayagam-L, 22 years, Vaniya, Army-Soldier of Jamnagar-Ahmedabad of Gujarat State, R/o Door No.174 Bajanaikoil Street, Walaja village, Vellore District, Chennaiah Tamilnadu State

Offence under section354A IPC, Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding Not Guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accusedis not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges under section 232 Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Name of the counsel for prosecutionSri Surendar Upadhyay, Addl. Public

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 2 of 7

Prosecutor

Name of the counsel for DefenceSri K. Krupakar Rao, Advocate

This case is coming before me on 19.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Surendar Upadhyay, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Krupakar Rao, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, RPS Mancherial filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act.

2.The story of prosecution as per charge sheet is that:-

On 28.01.2020 an early morning 03:30 am in running train

No.12655, Navjeevan Express in B-5 coach, berth No.30 Upper berth after passing the Mancherial railway station and was re-registered on 02.03.2020 at 17.00 hours, the PW1/father of victim stated that he along with victim and other family members were travelling from Ahmedabad to

Chennai vide PNR No.8626336381/8526336785 having reservation in B-5 coach, berth Nos.26,27,28,29, 30,49,50, 56, 57 at the time of mid night nearby 3.30 am, when they were sleeping in the coach that the victim shouted to help her by harassing nearby passenger in same coach, berth

No.31 of B5 coach trying to her sexual harassment. PW1/father of victim stated that his daughter was sleeping at the upper berth No.30 of B5 coach try to up stair and harassing for sexual harassment and his daughter

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 3 of 7

alert them and they caught the accused and handed over to the Warangal

Railway Station PS. Hence he lodged report.

Basing on this report, LW9/T. Sudhakar, SIRP of Railway Police registered a case in Cr.No.52 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 354A

IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and issued FIR. On verifying the CD file, the investigation done by LW8/Ch. Parashuramulu, RPS and basing on the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.6 of 2020 for the offence under

Section 354A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act in GRPS, Warangal. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1/father of victim. He got recorded the statement of victim through LW6/E. Jamuna Rani WRHC.

Further, he examined and recorded the statements of LW3/G.N.Swamy,

LW4/G. Narender, LW5/P. Nagender Rao and LW6/E. Jamuna Rani. He interrogated the accused and the accused confessed the commission of offence. He produced the accused before the concerned Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, the CD file was transferred to GRPS, Mancherial through SRP Secunderabad. On his requisition, the learned Magistrate recorded 164 CrPC statement of victim. He collected date of birth certificate of victim through LW7/Dr. M. Jagadeesan. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

3.The offence was taken cognizance by the learned I Additional

Sessions Judge Warangal for the offence punishable under Section 354A

IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act.

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 4 of 7

4.On appearance of accused and on hearing the learned counsel and learned public prosecutor charges were framed for the offence under

Section 354A IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At the stage of trial, this case was made over to this Court from

Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Warangal vide proceedings

Dis.No.398/2022/Admin, dated 21.07.2022.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 and

Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. PW1 is father of victim and PW2 is victim.

7.On completion of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.After hearing the arguments of both sides, today the matter stood for judgment.

9. Now the sole point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the accusedfor the offence under Section 354A IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubts or not?”

P O I N T:

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 5 of 7

10.The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined PW1 and

PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. The testimony of PW1/father of victim shows on 28.01.2020 he was coming from Ahmedabad to Chennai in the train, when the train crossed Mancherial suddenly his daughter raised screams, the passengers gathered there and they caught hold one person.

At that time he was sleeping so he could not understand what was happened and he enquired with his daughter, she informed suddenly one face came in front of her so she got feared due to night hours and raised screams. One co-passenger prepared the contents of complaint and obtained his signature. Thereafter, PW2/victim did not support prosecution case and categorically stated at about 2 years back when he was travelling in the train due to fear she raised screams. The passengers came to her, later the police also came there. She know only to this extent. The PW1 and PW2 did not support prosecution case and turned hostile. So the learned PP requests the Court to declare the witnesses hostile and cross examined them by explaining the contents of 161 statements even though they did not support prosecution case. So the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not useful to the prosecution.

11.As the material witnesses PW1 and PW2 turned hostile and did not support prosecution case so the learned PP given up the remaining witnesses. So there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

Since the incriminating evidence has not come on record against the accused, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is also dispensed.

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 6 of 7

Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, the accusedis not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges under section 232 Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, and after correction

pronounced by me in open court this the 21stday of April 2023.

sd/-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial. FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Father of victim -None- PW2: Victim

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint - Nil - : Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW1 :161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P3

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

SC No.97 of 2021 Page 7 of 7

:

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

sd/-

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial. FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

Special Judge, Fast Track special court

for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial

1 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SRI BATHULA SATHAIAH Prl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial

FRIDAY THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2023

IN

Cr.No.82 of 2023 of PS Mandamarri

Between: Gundeti Prabhu Kiran, S/o.Gopi, age 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o.Qr.No.ND-2596, Nagarjuna colony, CCC Naspur, mandal Naspur, district Mancherial. …Petitioner/accused No.1 //AND//

The State of Telangana represented through the SHO of P.S.Mandamarri …Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 26.06.2023 in the presence of Sri Ravinder Bandala, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 Sri P.Rayamallu, Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The petitioner/accused No.1 filed this petition under section 439 CrPC praying this Court to grant regular bail to him in the above crime registered against him and other accused No.2 to 4 for the offences under sections 307, 324, 323 and 506 r/w.34 IPC stating that he has been in the judicial custody from 24.05.2023 and he never committed the alleged offences, but was falsely implicated in the case and he is a Student and ready to face the trial of the case to prove his innocence and finally prayed to allow the petition.

2 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2023

2. The prosecution prayed for dismissal of the petition and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner/accused No.1.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

4. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.4 in this case by name S.Sai Kiran are the friends of accused

No.3 in the case by name P.Sandeep and on 10.05.2023 at about 1.00 pm, the accused No.2 in the case by name P.Vijay, who is elder brother of accused

No.3 Sandeep, upon call by Anusha went to the house of one Anusha to whom he laid bore-well at SC/ST colony, Vidyanagar, Mandamarri and parked his motorcycle infront of the house of LW3/Md.Riyaz and the said

Riyaz asked the accused No.2 Vijay as to why he parked his motorcycle infront of the house. Regarding which, some quarrels occurred between them and meanwhile, LW1 and LW2 by names M.Gangadhar and B.Shiva went to the spot and rescued Riyaz, who was beaten by accused No.2 with hands and keeping the said quarrel in the mind, the accused No.2 made phone call to his brother accused No.3 while following LW1 to LW3 and having noticed that LW1 to LW3 at Shair-E Dhaba, Andugulapet at

Mandamarri and were having food, meanwhile, the petitioner/accused No.1 along-with accused No.2 to 4 went there and attacked on LW1 to LW3 with knives, beer bottles and sticks with an intention to kill them.

3 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2023

5. The petitioner/accused No.1 attacked on Riyaz with knife that caused stab injury to the neck of Riyaz and accused No.2 beat M.Gangadhar the defacto-complainant with beer bottle that caused bleeding injury on the ear and cheek of M.Gangadhar. Meanwhile, B.Shiva/LW2 tried to escape from the spot, but he was chased and caught hold by accused No.3 and 4 and beat him with sticks and stones infront of Dhaba. As a result, B.Shiva received injury on his right hand and on noticing all the people gathered including

Dhaba workers and customers, all the accused including the petitioner/accused No.1 fled away from the spot and threatened the injured persons with dire consequences and the above crime came to be registered upon lodging report by the defacto-complainant M.Gangadhar.

6. The counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that this is the second bail application moved by the petitioner/accused No.1 as the previous bail petition filed by him was dismissed by this Court vide orders in CrlMP.

No.173 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023 and further submits that other accused

No.2 and 3 in the case were enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders in

CrlMP.No.159 of 2023 of 2023 dated 13.06.2023 and also submits that the

petitioner/accused No.1 is the Student and languishing in the jail from 24.05.2023 and also submits that entire investigation of the case is completed and prayed for bail.

7. As can be seen from the record and a perusal of remand case diary disclosing as many as (13) witnesses were examined so far in this case and the same disclosing the completion of entire investigation of the case and it 4 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2023 appears only formal filing of charge-sheet is due in this case and this is the second bail application moved by the petitioner/accused No.1 and considering the longevity of the judicial custody period of the petitioner/accused No.1 and considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner/accused No.1, who is said to be pursing his studies and as the alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, I am inclined to allow this petition. However, with certain conditions.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for like such each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial with a condition that after release from the jail, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall regularly attend before the Court and shall not involve in any other offences and shall not indulge in tampering the evidence and threatening the witnesses. Hence, the orders.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after

corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial Copy to:

1.The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial

2.Sri B.Ravinder, Advocate for the petitioner/accused No.1 (on payment of usual charges)

3.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Luxettipet

4.The SHO of PS Mandamarri

1 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SRI BATHULA SATHAIAH Prl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial

FRIDAY THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2023

IN

Cr.No.286 of 2023 of PS Mancherial

Between: Komuravelli Soundarya, W/o.Komuravelli Raja Bapu, Age 29 years, Occ:House-wife, R/o.H.No.2-30/4, Hanuman Street, Bejjala village, Mndl.Jaipur, dist:Mancherial. …Petitioner/accused //AND//

The State of Telangana represented through the SHO of P.S.Mancherial …Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 28.06.2023 in the presence of Sri Rangu Mallesh, Counsel for the petitioner/accused Sri P.Rayamallu, Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The petitioner/accused filed this petition under section 439 CrPC praying this Court to grant regular bail to her in the above crime registered against her for the offence under section 307 IPC stating that she has been in the judicial custody from 21.06.2023, on account of which her two small children are facing hardships and there is nobody to take care of them and she did not commit the alleged offence, but was falsely implicated in the case, however, she is ready to face the trial of the case to prove her innocence by regularly attending before the court and also ready to furnish sufficient sureties as ordered by this Court and finally prayed to allow the petition.

2 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2023

2. The prosecution prayed for dismissal of the petition and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner/accused.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

4. The prosecution allegation is that the marriage of the petitioner/accused and the defacto-complainant by name Raja Bapu was taken place in the month of March 2018 in the presence of both sides elders and according to their caste customs and for some days after the marriage, the couple lived happily by residing at Bejjala village of Jaipur mandal. Out of wedlock, the couple were blessed with two children by names Makshath and Princy respectively aged (4) years and (1 ½) years and one year back, the couple migrated to Hamaliwada of Mancherial and the defacto-complainant had been doing private job in the Bajaj Finance. However, there were quarrels between the couple frequently and even for petty issues and also there was conducting of panchayath before both sides elders, even then also, the petitioner/accused being wife of the defacto-complainant did not change her attitude towards her husband and as usually quarrelled with her husband.

5. While so, on 11.06.2023 at about 10.00 pm, after attending the marriage of his relatives, the defacto-complainant returned home and asked the petitioner/accused for preparing rice, instead of preparing the rice, the petitioner/accused argued with her husband and their children became afraid and started crying on seeing the gallata between the couple. Upon 3 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2023 which, the petitioner/accused started beating her children and when the defacto-complainant tried to stop the beating, he was abused by the petitioner/accused by stating that “who are you to stop her” and further pushed her husband aside and brought the chilli powder from the kitchen and sprinkled it in the eyes of the defacto-complainant. Upon that the defacto-complainant shouted loudly and could not bear the pain. Meanwhile, the petitioner/accused brought vegetable knife from the kitchen and stabbed in the stomach of defacto-complainant, that caused bleeding injury to the defacto-complainant, who tried to escape from the attack by his wife. Even then also, the petitioner/accused followed her husband by holding knife in her hands with an intention to kill him. However, T.Srinivas and T.Kalyan who are the neighbours, on hearing the gallata rushed to the spot and rescued the defacto-complainant and shifted him to Amrutha private hospital at Mancherial in an ambulance for treatment and the above crime came to be registered upon lodging report by the defacto-complainant.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

7. The counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner/ accused did not commit the alleged offence, but was falsely implicated in the case and further submits that entire investigation of the case is completed and charge-sheet is also filed in this case and prayed for bail.

4 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2023

8. As can be seen from the record, it is found that charge-sheet is filed after completion of the entire investigation of the case. Hence, further detention of the petitioner/accused in the judicial custody appears to be not necessary and considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner/ accused that she has to take care of her two small children and also considering the fact that the petitioner/accused has been in the judicial custody from 21.06.2023 and as the alleged offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and for securing the ends of justice, I am inclined to allow this petition.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for like such each to the satisfaction of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial with a condition that after release from the jail, the petitioner/accused shall regularly attend before the Court and shall not involve in any other offences and shall not indulge in tampering the evidence and threatening the witnesses. Hence, the orders.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections,

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial Copy to:

1.The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial

2.Sri Rangu Mallesh, Advocate for the petitioner/accused (on payment of usual charges)

3.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Asifabad

4.The SHO of PS Mancherial

1 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SRI BATHULA SATHAIAH Prl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial

TUESDAY THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2023

IN

Cr.No.53 of 2023 of PS Tandur

Between:

1. Medi Laxmi, W/o.Late Ramesh, age 50 years, Occ:House-hold, r/o.Shivaji Nagar.Presently residing at Naspur, Mandal Naspur, district Mancherial.

2. Dharmaji Tulasi, W/o.Rajesham, age 45 years, Occ:House-wife, R/o.Raidandi village of Anthargaon mandal, dist:Peddapalli.

…Petitioners/accused No.5 and 6 //AND//

The State of Telangana represented through the SHO of P.S. Tandur …Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 21.06.2023 in the presence of Sri R.R.Ramulu, Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.5 and 6 and the Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

:: O R D E R ::

The petitioners/accused No.5 and 6 filed this petition under section 438 CrPC praying this Court to grant anticipatory bail to them in the above crime registered against them and other accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under sections 498-A and 304 (B) r/w.34 IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act stating that they are no way concerned with the alleged offences and never committed them and since their marriage, they have been residing at their in-laws houses in different villages and yet they were falsely 2 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2023 implicated in the case just because they happened to be the sisters of accused No.1 in the case and finally prayed to allow the petition.

2. The prosecution prayed for dismissal of the petition and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused No.5 and 6.

3. The allegation against the petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 is that along- with other accused No.1 to 4 in the case, they harassed physically and mentally one Srilatha their sister-in-law who is wife of accused No.1 by way of demanding additional dowry due amounts from Srilatha’s parents and further it is alleged that the petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 whenever used to visit the house of accused No.1 at Shivaji Nagar, Thandur, they used to utter that in case their brother accused No.1 undergoes another marriage with another woman, he will get more dowry and said harassment was also used to be revealed by Srilatha to her family members.

4. It may be noted that the marriage of accused No.1 by name P.Mahendar in the case was performed with Srilatha on 23.12.2020 as per their customs and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.2,50,000/-, 1 ½ tula gold and ½ tula gold ring were presented to the accused No.1 as dowry by the parents of

Srilatha, so also Rs.1,00,000/- was given after the marriage out of agreed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and there were some due amounts which could not be arranged by Srilatha’s mother by name Bagya and on that ground,

Srilatha’s husband accused No.1 and her mother-in-law accused No.2 and her brother-in-law accused No.3 and her co-sister accused No.4 along-with petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 caused physical and mental harassment to 3 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2023

Srilatha and due to such unbearable harassment on 12.03.2023 Srilatha left her matrimonial home and committed suicide by falling under a running train at KM. No.228/32 down line track between Repally wada and Rechini road railway stations and thus, the alleged offences were committed by the petitioners/accused No.5 and 6 along-with other accused No.1 to 4 and the above crime came to be registered upon lodging report by the deafcto- complainant.

5. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

6. The counsel for the petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 submits that entire investigation of the case is completed and the petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 are no way concerned with the alleged offences and prayed to allow the petition.

7. It may be noted here that the accused No.1 to 4 in the case were granted regular bail vide orders passed by this Court in CrlMP.No.174 of 2023 dated 09.06.2023 in respect of accused No.2 & 4 and also vide orders in

CrlMP.No.191 of 2023 dated 26.06.2023 in respect of accused No.1 & 3.

However, the instant petition is filed under section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail and as there is specific allegation against the petitioners/ accused No.5 & 6 that they supported their brother accused No.1 whenever they visited his house and along-with accused No.1, they caused harassment physically and mentally to Srilatha and by way of uttering demanding of

additional dowry and also by uttering that their brother would get more dowry

4 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2023 if he marries any other woman and also to be noted that the death of the deceased was taken place within two years and three months after the marriage and as there is a specific demand of additional dowry that driven

Srilatha to commit suicide by falling under a running train. Hence, in view of the grave nature of the alleged offences, I am declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused No.5 & 6 in as much as the charge-sheet is yet to be filed in this case and the investigation is still in progress.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after corrections,

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial

1 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: SRI BATHULA SATHAIAH Prl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2023

IN Cr.NO.78 OF 2023 of PS Jannaram Between:

1. Md.Iliyas, S/o.Ankus, age 37 years, Occ:Private job, R/o.H.No.3-109/1, Indhanpalli, dist:Mancherial.

2. Md.Haseena, W/o.Md.Iliyas, age 34 years, Occ:House-wife, R/o.H.No.3-109/1, Indhanpalli, dist:Mancherial. …Petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 //AND//

The State of Telangana represented through the SHO of P.S.Jannarm …Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 26.06.2023 in the presence of Sri Karre Lachanna, Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and the Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

:: O R D E R ::

The petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 filed this petition under section 438 CrPC praying this Court to grant anticipatory bail to them in the above crime registered against them for the offences under sections 420 and 468

IPC stating that they were falsely implicated in the case for the statistical purpose and never committed the alleged offences and no way concerned with them. However, they are ready to face the trial of the case to prove their innocence and having fixed abodes and themselves absconding from the legal process does not arise and prayed to allow the petition.

2 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2023

2. The prosecution prayed for dismissal of the petition and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 being the couple and residents of Indhanpalli village of Jannaram mandal allegedly forged the signatures of Indhanpalli village Panchayat Secretary with a plan to avail housing loan from Cholamandala Investment and Finance Ltd, and also by preparing the fake stamps of panchayath office and by using the said fake stamps and by forging the signatures of Panchayat Secretary, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 allegedly moved the application for obtaining the housing loan and during verification of signatures undertaken by

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd, it came to light that the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 committed the alleged offences in order to get monetary gain for them and upon lodging report by the defacto-complainant, who is Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat, Indhanpalli, the above crime came to be registered.

4. The counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 submitted that none of the ingredients under sections 420 and 468 IPC could be attracted as it is the only allegation that there was preparing of fake stamps in the name of Panchayat Secretary of Panchayat Office and forgery of Panchayat

Secretary signatures and unless the said signatures were analyzed by the handwriting expert, it cannot be deemed that the said signatures were forged by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and further submits that there was no 3 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2023 passing of any consideration to show that there was any wrongful gain for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and also to show that there was any wrong full loss caused to the financial institution and at the most, it is the only allegation that allegedly during the verification of the records with Panchayat office, the alleged forgery of signatures and making of fake stamps came to the light and it is further submitted that only for statistical purpose, the instant case is registered by the Police and finally prayed to allow the petition.

5. As can be seen from the record, the names of the petitioners/accused

No.1 and 2 are found figured in the FIR and thereby the petitioners/accused

No.1 and 2 apprehending their arrest by the Police and as there is no wrongful gain for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 which only to be taken as vague allegation in as much as even forgery of signatures allegedly of

Panchayat Secretary by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 required to be ascertained through handwriting expert and considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 who are couple and as the alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, I am inclined to allow this petition. However, with certain conditions.

4. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. The Station House Officer of

PS Jannaram, in the event of making arrest of petitioners/accused No.1 and 2, is hereby directed to release them on furnishing personal bonds of

Rs.20,000/- each by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 and upon furnishing of the two sureties each for the same sum and further the 4 of 4 Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2023 petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency for completion of the investigation of the case and by making themselves available to the investigating agency as and when required and shall not indulge in tampering the evidence and threatening the witnesses. Hence, the orders.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after

corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Sessions Judge

Mancherial Copy to:

1.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet

2.Sri Karre Lachanna, Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 (on payment of usual charges)

3.The SHO of PS Jannaram