G.Venkateswarlu

1

In the Court of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Gurazala.

PRESENT: Sri. G.Venkateswarlu X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2024

Crl.M.P.No.169/2024 in Cr.No.10/2024 of

Rentachinthala PS ., on the file of A J C J, Gurazala

Between:-

Gogula Venkataramireddy, S/o.Venkateswara Reddy, Hindu, 46 yrs, Manchikallu (V), Karempudi (M), Palnadu (Dt).

... Petitioner/A1

And

The State: S.H.O, Rentachinthala P.S.

... Respondent/Complainant

This bail petition coming on 12-04-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Hari Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner/A1 and of Sri B.Nagi Reddy, Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is a bail application filed by the petitioner/A1 under

Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge him on bail in

Cr.No.10/2024 of Rentachinthala Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 of

I.P.C, pending further proceedings in the case.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that :

The F.I.R has been registered on false and bogus facts. The allegations made against the petitioner are false, frivolous, vexatious and lack in the material substance. The petitioner did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case.

The Sections imposed against the petitioner are not applicable.

The petitioner is respectable citizen of society and he is having 2 good antecedents. He lives by honest means. There is no motive

for the petitioner to commit the alleged offence on the defacto

complainant. There is no nexus to connect the petitioner in this crime. Most of the investigation was completed except filing

Charge Sheet. The petitioner has permanent place of abode and there is no chance of his absconding from the course of justice.

The petitioner undertakes to present himself before the

Police/Court as and when directed. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses in any manner and he is ready and willing to accept any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. A2 to A4 & A6 to A9 were enlarged on bail. The petitioner has got sufficient solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. So, the petitioner may be released on bail.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail petition.

4.The point for determination is :-

“Whether the petitioner/A1 is entitled for regular bail

as prayed for ?”

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the material record.

6. POINT:- The case of the prosecution in brief is that the defacto complainant/Mekapothula Eswar Reddy owns Ac.10-00 of land in his village and every year, he has been raising the paddy crop. On 18-02-2024, the complainant went to his field for watering them, A2 stopped his motor and went away. When the complainant asked A2 about his activities, he gave arrogant reply.

At about 4:00 p.m, while the complainant was proceeding towards his house from Poleramma Thalli Temple and when he reached the house of A1, A1 to A9 and some others formed into an unlawful assembly, attacked him with axes and hunting sickles by shouting as “Champandira Veedini, Veedi Chavu YSRCP Party Nayakulaku 3

Bayam Kaliginchali Appudu TDP Party ki Eduru Vundadu”. Among them, A1 attacked him with an axe on his head with a view to kill him, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground. A2 beat him with a stick on his person, A3 beat him with hunting sickle on his hand and remaining persons manhandled him indiscriminately.

When the complainant’s maternal uncle/Potlapati Chandra Reddy (LW2) and his son/Potlapati Manohar Reddy (LW3) intervened, the accused also beat them with hands and legs. As a result of which,

LW3/Manohar Reddy sustained injuries on his left cheek, whereas,

LW2/Chandra Reddy sustained injury on his left side under the ear.

As he is supporting his maternal uncle who is Village Sarpanch and YSRCP Party leader, the accused attacked him with a view to kill him by putting the villagers into fear so as to join the TDP

Party. Thereafter, his maternal uncle and his son shifted the complainant to Govt. Hospital, Gurazala for treatment. Upon receipt of hospital intimation by the Sub-Inspector of

Rentachinthala Police Station, a case in Cr.No.10/2024 was registered against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C and took up investigation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 in his arguments reiterated the petition averments and would submit that the A1 was working in Chilli Yard at Guntur at the time of the alleged offence. The rest of the accused in this case were already enlarged on bail. Almost the entire investigation was over. The injured were also discharged from the hospital. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03-04-2024. So, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending interalia that the A3 & A5 obtained anticipatory bail. Specific overt acts and allegations were made against the petitioner/A1. In the said incident, two persons sustained injuries and one of them sustained grievous injury on 4 the head. The weapon used is an axe. The said material object is not yet seized. The investigation is not yet completed. So, the petition may be dismissed.

9. It is also well settled law that grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

While placement of the accused in the society though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail.

The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of the bail. While liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all-round effort on the part of the

Courts to protect such liberties of the individuals. But his protection can be made available to the deserving ones only since the term protection cannot by itself be termed to be absolute in any and every situation but stands qualified depending upon exigencies of the situation. In the event of committal of heinous crime, it is the society that needs protection from the said elements. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

10. As seen from the record, the investigation is not yet completed. The alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act with imprisonment for life. In view of the offence alleged against the petitioner/A1, nature and depth of the allegations and that the investigation is not yet completed, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/A1 at this juncture. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

5

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 15th day of April, 2024.

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Copy to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, X ADJ Court, Gurazala.

3. Sri K.Hari Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner/A1

4. The SHO, Rentachinthala P.S

1

In the Court of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Gurazala.

PRESENT: Sri. G.Venkateswarlu X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2024

Crl.M.P.No.172/2024 in Cr.No.38/2024 of

Veldurthy P S ., on the file of A J C J, Macherla

Between:-

1. Kommu Gopiraju @ Rajesh @ Nani, S/o.Srinu, 26 yrs, C/Yadava, Kandlagunta (V), Veldurthy (M), Palnadu (Dt).

2. Mangadoddi Hemaraju @ Vemaraju, S/o.Veeramallu, 32 yrs, C/Yadava, Kandlagunta (V), Veldurthy (M), Palnadu (Dt).

3. Kommu @ Mangadoddi Nageswari, W/o.Gopiraju @ Rajesh @ Nani, 22 yrs, C/Yadava, Kandlagunta (V), Veldurthy (M), Palnadu (Dt).

... Petitioners/A1 to A3

And

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy P.S Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gurazala.

... Respondent/Complainant

This bail petition coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D.Kiran Das, Advocate for the

Petitioners/A1 to A3, and Sri.B.Nagi Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is a bail application filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge them on regular bail in Cr.No.38/2024 of Veldurthy P.S for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C, pending further proceedings in the crime.

2

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that:

The petitioners are innocents and they did not commit any offence much less the alleged offence. The F.I.R is belated and concocted one. Without proper investigation, the Police have foisted the false case against the petitioners basing on the surmises and conjectures. The confession statements of petitioners are all false and they have no value in the eye of law.

No reliance is placed by the Police about the pre-plan of petitioners and other accused in committing the offence. The petitioners have no intention or motive to cause harm to the complainant or any other individual. There are no serious allegations attributed against A2 & A3. There is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or the witnesses if they are enlarged on bail. The petitioners undertake to appear before the Court as and when directed. Most of the investigation was completed. The petitioners have got permanent place of residence. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 08-04-2024. The petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. So, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

4.The point for determination is :-

“Whether the petitioners/A1 to A3 are entitled for

regular bail as prayed for ?”

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioners/A1 to A3 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Perused the material record.

6. POINT:- The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant’s brother/Ganneboina Gangiraju was killed by A1 and some of their villagers which is subject matter in Cr.No.65/2020 of 3

Veldurthy P.S under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. In retaliation to the said murder, the complainant, his brothers and others killed their villager/Panga Venkateswarlu which is the subject matter in Cr.No.198/2021 under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Keeping the previous disputes in mind, the A1 intended to kill the complainant and his brothers. While so, on 04-04-2024 at about 6:00 p.m, when the complainant/LW1 was going on his motorcycle to bring LW2 to the house from the field and when he reached the burial ground, the A1 beat LW1 with an axe and the axe stick hit the back of the complainant, so, the complainant fell down. The A2 & A3 beat LW1 with sticks on his legs, due to which, LW1 sustained swelling injuries on his legs.

When A1 tried to beat LW1 with the axe on the head, LW1 kept his hands across, so, the axe hit the hand between the right hand thumb and index finger and also back side of the head. As a result, LW1 sustained bleeding injuries. Having seen the same,

LWs.5 & 6 rushed there. So, the A1 to A3 fled away from there.

Subsequently, the Head Constable on receipt of hospital admission intimation recorded the statement of the complainant.

Thereafter, the said statement was registered as a case in

Cr.No.38/2024 under Sections 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C and investigation was taken up.

7.The learned counsel for petitioners/A1 to A3 in his arguments reiterated the petition averments and would submit that to satisfy the political grudge and in view of ensuing elections, the complainant foisted this false case. The A3 is havin six (6) months old breast feeding child. As per the prosecution case, the complainant received only simple injuries. The said injuries were caused with the stick of the axe. Only to pressurize the accused in the case filed by the accused, this false case was foisted against them. Most part of the investigation was completed as LWs.1 to 8 were examined. So, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail or atleast, the A3 may be enlarged on bail.

4

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending interalia that as per his information, most part of the investigation was completed, but the charge sheet is not filed. As per the wound certificate of the complainant, he sustained simple injuries.

9.It is also well settled law that grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

While placement of the accused in the society though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail.

The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of the bail. While liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all-round effort on the part of the

Courts to protect such liberties of the individuals. But his protection can be made available to the deserving ones only since the term protection cannot by itself be termed to be absolute in any and every situation but stands qualified depending upon exigencies of the situation. In the event of committal of heinous crime, it is the society that needs protection from the said elements. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

10. As seen from the record, the investigation is not yet completed. The alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act with imprisonment for life. In view of the offence alleged against the petitioners/

A1 to A3 nature and depth of the allegations and that the investigation is not yet completed, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners/A1 to A3 at this juncture. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

5

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Copy to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Macherla

2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, X ADJ Court, Gurazala

3. Sri.D.Kiran Das Advocate for the Petitioners/A1 to A3

4. SHO, Veldurthy P.S

1

In the Court of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge: Gurazala.

PRESENT: Sri. G.Venkateswarlu X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2024

Crl.M.P.No.165/2024 in Cr.No.44/2024 of

Dachepalli P S ., on the file of A J C J, Gurazala

Between:-

Nagendla Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.Venkata Ramanaiah, 40 yrs, Balija, Pedda Uyyalavada (V), Darsi (M), Prakasam (Dt).

... Petitioner/Accused

And

The State: Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gurazala.

... Respondent/Complainant

This bail petition coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Chelamaraju, Advocate for the

Petitioner/Accused, and Sri.B.Nagi Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is a bail application filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge him on regular bail in Cr.No.44/2024 of Dachepalli P.S for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C, pending further proceedings in the crime.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are that :

The F.I.R has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts stated in the F.I.R are fabricated, concocted and it is belated one. The allegations made against the petitioner are frivolous, vexatious and lack in the material substance. The petitioner did not commit any offence. The petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. The Section imposed against the petitioner is not 2 applicable. Most of the investigation was completed. The petitioner is not required in any kind of investigation. The petitioner has got permanent place of abode and there is no chance of his absconding from the course of justice. The petitioner has no prior criminal record. The petitioner undertakes to present himself before the Police/Court as and when directed. The petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses in any manner and he is ready and willing to accept any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. There is no apprehension of other accused in this case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14-03-2024. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the

Court. So, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

4.The point for determination is :-

“Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for

regular bail as prayed for ?”

5.Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Perused the material record.

6. POINT:- The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant who is acting as incharge V.R.O of Ramapuram

Village on 21-02-2024 came to know about the male dead body lying near R.T.A Check Post in the outskirts of Ramapuram Village.

So, he visited the spot along with his V.R.A and noticed the male dead body lying in prone position. He noticed one blood stained stone and that the throat of the deceased was cut with some sharp object and that the deceased was killed about three (3) days ago. Subsequently on the report given by the complainant, the Police registered a case in Cr.No.44/2024 under Section 302 of

I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Police seized total eight (8) articles from the crime scene, got photographed the 3 dead body of the deceased. The dead body was shifted to

Community Health Center, Gurazala for safe custody as the identity of the deceased was not established. The Police held inquest over the corpse of the deceased and examined the witnesses. Subsequently, the wife and relatives of the deceased came to the Police Station in search of the deceased and identified the belongings of the deceased. Subsequently, post mortem examination was held over the corpse of the deceased and the dead body was buried. Subsequently, the Tahsildar of

Dachepalli got exhumed the dead body of the deceased from the tomb and on seeing the dead body, the wife and relatives of the deceased identified him. After examining LWs.1 to 14, the accused was apprehended and during the course of investigation, the accused confessed the guilt of offence in the presence of the mediators on 13-03-2024.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner/accused in his arguments reiterated the petition averments and would submit that most part of the investigation was completed as LWs.1 to 21 were examined.

The Crime Scene Observation Report was drafted and Rough

Sketch of the scene of offence was also drawn. The seizure report was also drafted. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14-03-2024. So, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending interalia that DNA Test is pending and RFSL

Report is not yet received. Some more witnesses are to be examined. So, the petition may be dismissed.

9.It is also well settled law that grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

While placement of the accused in the society though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail.

The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the 4 grant of the bail. While liberty of an individual is precious and there should always be an all-round effort on the part of the

Courts to protect such liberties of the individuals. But his protection can be made available to the deserving ones only since the term protection cannot by itself be termed to be absolute in any and every situation but stands qualified depending upon exigencies of the situation. In the event of committal of heinous crime, it is the society that needs protection from the said elements. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

10. As seen from the record, the investigation is not yet completed. In view of the offence alleged against the petitioner/ accused, nature and depth of the allegations and that the investigation is not yet completed, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused at this juncture. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Copy to:

1. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala

2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, X ADJ Court, Gurazala

3. Sri.K.Chelamaraju, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused

4. SHO, Dachepalli P.S