1
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: MIRYALAGUDA
Present: Sri. M. Nagaraju
Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda
FAC; VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court,
Miryalaguda
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2020
Crl MP No.177 of 2020
in Crime No.202 of 2020 of PS Miryalaguda Rural
Between:
1) Bhukya Madan S/o Devoji, 36 years, Staff Nurse (Male) at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad Dhanavath Indira W/o Late Sevula, 34 years, Agriculturist, Native of Jaggya Thanda H/o Thakkelapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District
2) Bhukya Sharada W/o Bhukya Madan, 33 years, Agriculturist, R/o Jaggya Thanda H/o Thakkelapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District (Native of Seethya Thanda Village, Madgulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District)
... Petitioners/A1 and A2
and
State of Telangana through Public Prosecutor PS Miryalaguda Rural
... Respondent
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners/A1 and A2 and M.Manohar Reddy Additional Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
1. This is the fourth bail application of the petitioners/A1 and 2 in this crime.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners/A1 and 2 is for the offences under Sections 120B, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners/A1 and 2 is in judicial custody since 24.8.2020.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 11.8.2020 at 14.00 hours the complainant Vankudothu
Usha came to Miryalaguda Rural PS and submitted a Telugu written petition in which she stated that they jointly possess Ac.0.30 gts of agricultural land at the outskirts of Shettipalem Village. ON 10.8.2020 2 she along with her husband Naathu, her brother-in-laws Vankudoth
Bhagwaan and his wife Kamalamma, Vankudothu Nagender and his wife
Padmall all together went to Jaggu thanda to meet sarpanch in regard to their land dispute, but as he was not there and was present at
Narsimhulagudem village doing his agriculture works, they all had been to Narsimhulagudem village. The sarpanch Manjya asked them about their land dispute, then immediately their opponent Bhukya Madan,
Bhukya Sharadha, Dhanavath Indira, Dhanavath Sampath, Bhukya
Devoji, Bhukya Laxmi and three unknown persons attacked on her, and her husband and her brothers-in-law. The said sapanch tried to rescue them, but the in vain. Then the complainant raised hue and cries on that the coolies who were near to them came and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. Immediately she shifted the injured to
Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and on the advice of the doctors she shifted her husband to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and requested to take legal action against the accused.
Basing on the said complaint a crime was registered u/s 447, 427, 324 r/w 34 IPC. On 13.8.2020 the police received intimation from Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad that husband of the complainant namely
Naathu died while undergoing treatment. Then the section 302 IPC was added. Hence, the present case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A1 and 2 submitted that petitioners/A1 and 2 are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence prayed to enlarge the petitioners/A1 and 2 on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
3
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now the point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/A1 and 2 can be enlarged on bail?”
8. POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and there are no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier bail application,. Hence this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A1 and 2 pending the investigation.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of November, 2020.
Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. VIII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Miryalaguda
4
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 107 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 100 of 2020 of Haliya P.S.
Between:
Bommu Mahesh S/o Srinivas, age: 23 years, Occu: Lorry Driver, R/o Haliya Village, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District.
… Petitioner/Accused No.1. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Haliya P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ch. Naga Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
1. This is the second bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 u/Sec.439
Cr.P.C. of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under
Sections Secs.417, 420, 376 r/w 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(r)(s) of
SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, the petitioner/accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 14-08-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
5
That on 11-05-2020 at 10.00 hours the complainant Kum. Chinnapothula
Krishnaveni came to Police Station, Haliya and lodged a written complaint in
Telugu stating that since one year her villager one Bommu Mahesh has got acquaintance with her, he developed friendship with her and enjoyed her both physically and mentally from the last one year by telling her deceitful words in the name of love and marriage. Now, when she asked him to marry her, he and his family members refused to marry her as their castes are different. In this regard his family members i.e., his aunt M. Mangamma, Saidamma and Srinivasa believed to her by telling deceitful words as they will perform marriage with him. But, they couldn‟t keep their promise regarding the marriage issue. Hence the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner/Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail?
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and there are no change of circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier bail application. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused
No.1 pending the investigation.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
6
Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of September, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
7
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 17th day of September, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 282 of 2020
in Cr. No. 51 of 2020 (P.S. Chandampet)
BETWEEN:- 8
1. Korra Gopal S/o Panthy, age: 26 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Rollabanda thanda, H/o Mudigonda village of Devarakonda mandal in Nalgonda District (A-4).
2. Ramavath Shankar S/o Pathya, age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Building thanda, Chandampet mandal in Nalgonda District (A-9).
….Petitioners/Accused No.4 and 9.
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Chandampet Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Mushtaq Ahmed, Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.4 and 9 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
2. This is the first bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners/Accused No.4 and 9 of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 120(b), 143, 147, 148, 302, 506 r/w 149 IPC, the petitioner/accused No.4 is in judicial custody since 13-07-2020 and the petitioner/accused No.9 is in judicial custody since 17-07-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 04-07-2020 at 23.55 hours the complainant Kum. Ramavath Pavithra came to Chandampet Police Station and submitted a Telugu written petition, in which she stated that on 04-07-2020 evening at about 4.00 p.m., near her village at
Polepally X roads on Dindi-Deverakonda road side encroachments are demolishing by the R & B Department stasff. At that time her father Ramavath Lalu Naik also present at that place and he is discussing with the R & B Department officers about road widening. Meantime, her agnates, who are also present at that place namely
Ramavath Vijay @ Takur and his son Ramavath Madhu and his son-in-law Korra
Gopal are suspecting that her father was accompanied with R & B officers and demolishing her uncle‟s illegal encroachments. Before the shop shutter of the accused No.1, picked up quarrel with the father of complainant and attacked on him. Meantime, S.I. of Chandampet P.S. Sri. Sandeep, who is present at that „X‟ roads place came there along with his force and dispersed to all from that place.
9
Thereafter her father came to home. After about 15 minutes, her said uncle Vijay @
Takur, and sons Santhosh, Madhu and his son-in-laws Korra Gopal, Korra vijay and their relatives Ramavath Poorya and her villager Ramavath Shankar, Ramavath
Lokesh, Ramavath Banu and Mudavath Ramesh are keeping the old land and political disputes in their mind, as per their before plan, they all are attacked on her father with iron rods, hockey sticks, wooden pestle and sticks. Meantime her elder brother Mohan Krishna, younger brother Vamshi Krishna and her mother Laxmi and others tried to rescue her father. On that they are threatened them and chased them with dire consequences. As a result, her father was received severe bleeding injuries on his head and fell down and got unconscious. On observing the condition of her father, all the above accused think that he was died and they leaved her father and fled away from there. Immediately, they were shifted her father to Govt.,
Area Hospital, Deverakonda for treatment. On the advice of the Duty Medical
Officer got first aid and adviced to shift him to Hyderabad for better treatment. On the advice of the Medical Officer, they were shifted her father to Aware Global
Hospital, Bairamalguda, Hyderabad for better treatment. Where the Medical Officer was examined her father and declared that he was brought dead. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.4 and 9 submitted that the petitioners/accused No.4 and 9 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the petitioners/accused
No.4 and 9 on bail.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioners Accused No.4 and 9 can be enlarged on bail ?” 10
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioners/accused No.4 and 9 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused No.4 and 9 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
11
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 17th day of September, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 283 of 2020
in Cr. No. 51 of 2020 (P.S. Chandampet)
BETWEEN:-
3. Ramavath Vijay @ Takur S/o Gopya, age: 48 years, R/o Building thanda of Chandampet mandal in Nalgonda District (A-1).
4. Ramavath Madhu S/o Vijay, age: 25 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Building thanda of Chandampet mandal in Nalgonda District (A-3).
5. Korra Vijay S/o Anthya, age: 21 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Korra thanda, H/o Mainampally village of Devarakonda mandal (A-5).
6. Ramavath Poorya @ Laxman S/o Ravi, age: 19 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Pedda thanda, H/o Manavath thanda of Chandampet mandal (A-6).
7. Ramavath Lokesh S/o Chandulal S/o age: 20 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Building thanda of Chandampet mandal in Nalgonda District (A-7).
8. Ramavath Bhanu @ Bhanu Prasad S/o Ravi, age: 20 years, R/o Pedda thanda, H/o manavath thanda of Chandampet mandal (A-8).
….Petitioners/Accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8.
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Chandampet Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Mohd. Mushtaq Ahmed, Counsel for the petitioners/accused and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
3. This is the first bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners/Accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 120(b), 143, 147, 148, 302, 506 r/w 149 IPC, the petitioners/accused are in judicial custody since 13-07-2020.
12
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 04-07-2020 at 23.55 hours the complainant Kum. Ramavath Pavithra came to Chandampet Police Station and submitted a Telugu written petition, in which she stated that on 04-07-2020 evening at about 4.00 p.m., near her village at
Polepally X roads on Dindi-Deverakonda road side encroachments are demolishing by the R & B Department stasff. At that time her father Ramavath Lalu Naik also present at that place and he is discussing with the R & B Department officers about road widening. Meantime, her agnates, who are also present at that place namely
Ramavath Vijay @ Takur and his son Ramavath Madhu and his son-in-law Korra
Gopal are suspecting that her father was accompanied with R & B officers and demolishing her uncle‟s illegal encroachments. Before the shop shutter of the accused No.1, picked up quarrel with the father of complainant and attacked on him. Meantime, S.I. of Chandampet P.S. Sri. Sandeep, who is present at that „X‟ roads place came there along with his force and dispersed to all from that place.
Thereafter her father came to home. After about 15 minutes, her said uncle Vijay @
Takur, and sons Santhosh, Madhu and his son-in-laws Korra Gopal, Korra vijay and their relatives Ramavath Poorya and her villager Ramavath Shankar, Ramavath
Lokesh, Ramavath Banu and Mudavath Ramesh are keeping the old land and political disputes in their mind, as per their before plan, they all are attacked on her father with iron rods, hockey sticks, wooden pestle and sticks. Meantime her elder brother Mohan Krishna, younger brother Vamshi Krishna and her mother Laxmi and others tried to rescue her father. On that they are threatened them and chased them with dire consequences. As a result, her father was received severe bleeding injuries on his head and fell down and got unconscious. On observing the condition of her father, all the above accused think that he was died and they leaved her father and fled away from there. Immediately, they were shifted her father to Govt.,
Area Hospital, Deverakonda for treatment. On the advice of the Duty Medical
Officer got first aid and adviced to shift him to Hyderabad for better treatment. On the advice of the Medical Officer, they were shifted her father to Aware Global
Hospital, Bairamalguda, Hyderabad for better treatment. Where the Medical Officer 13 was examined her father and declared that he was brought dead. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 submitted that the petitioners/accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the petitioners/accused
No.1, 3, 5 to 8 on bail.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioners Accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioners/accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused No.1, 3, 5 to 8 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
14 15 16 17 18 19
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 97 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 55 of 2020 of Suryapet Rural P.S.
Between:
20
Chinnam Mahesh S/o Kumar, age: 34 years, Occu: Cameramen, R/o Gajula Ramaram village of Kuthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District.
… Petitioner/Accused No.1. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Suryapet Rural P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Md. Nizamuddin, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
4. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 u/Sec.439
Cr.P.C. of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offence under
Sections 498-A, 509 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015, the petitioner are in judicial custody since 04-09-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 07-03-2020 at 16.00 hours, the complainant Gali Laxmi went to
Suryapet rural P.S. and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that in the year 2011 when she was working in Sohal company at Hyderabad, she used to attend
Church on every Sunday. In this regard, Chinna Mahesh got acquaintance with her and wanted to marry her though their castes are different. Thus, Mahesh and his father Kumar came to her house and discussed with her parents and settled the marriage. At the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.1,50,000/- net cash and 04 tulas gold to her husband and his parents. Her parents performed their marriage grandly in Church of Balemla village by spending more money. Her husband led conjugal life with her happily for a period of one year. After birth of her elder son, her mother-in-law Chinam Rajamani started harassing her that as to why she was laid with her husband on barely and also she was lying with her after bathing. She also harassed her mentally and physically and abused her in filthy language that she sell her in open market and used to beat her on her head. Her 21 husband and mother-in-law harassed her to bring cot and motorcycle as dowry.
After birth of her second son her mother-in-law came to Balemla village to take her where she abused her that her second son colour is black, she might have given birth to other person and abused her “Idi mala Lanjadi evvariki kannado and mala lanje savithi bogandi”. Her husband and mother-in-law sent out from the house and they did not allow her though she requested them in many ways. Her village sarpanch made to convince them, her husband and mother-in-law did not hear her words and they suspected her fidelity. Hence, the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner/Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail?
7.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of September, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
22
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
23
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 277 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 111 of 2018 of Dindi P.S.
Between:
Yadama Lingamaiah S/o Ramalingaiah, age: 39 years, Caste: Yadav, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Dindi (Gundlapally) village and Mandal in Nalgonda District.
… Petitioner/Accused No.1. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Dindi P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
5. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 u/Sec.439
Cr.P.C. of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under
Sections Sec.306 IPC, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 31-08-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 29-10-2018 at 11.30 hours one Yedama Yellaiah came to Dindi
Police Station and submitted a Telugu written petition, in which he stated that his father Yedama Ramalingaiah had two sons and he had one younger brother
Lingamaiah. They had agricultural land and in this regard they had agricultural land disputes also. His father Ramalingaiah said to both and advised them, don‟t remove the cotton sticks in that land. However, the younger brother Lingamaiah and one Sallaiah came to that dispute agricultural land situated at Sy.No.348/AA along with one Tractor and remove the cotton sticks and clean the disputed land. In this regard his father got disturbed mentally, on 26-10-2018 evening at about 07.00 hours he went away from his home. Accordingly, they searched for his father, but he did not trace. Later, on 29-10-2018 morning at 06.00 hours his father 24 was died in his agricultural lands by consuming the pesticide poison, the same was his neighbor land ownver Rasamalla Ramulu came to his house informed him.
Immediately, he went to that place and noticed that his father was died and one insecticide poison bottle VADH, light green colour plastic bottle fell down beside his father dead body. Hence, the present case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.1 is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner/Accused can be enlarged on bail?”
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1. Accordingly this point is answered.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioner/Accused No.1 is enlarged on bail on executing his self bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Devarakonda.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of September, 2020.
Sd/-
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
25
Copy to:
1.The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda.
2.The S.H.O. Dindi P.S.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 14nd day of September, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 279 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 85 of 2020 of Dindi P.S.
26
Between:
1. Nallavelli Rajesh Reddy S/o Kurma Reddy, aged: about 35 years, Occu: Business, (A-4)
2. Nallavelli Kurma Reddy S/o Venkat Ram Reddy, aged: about 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-5)
3. Vankeshwaram Rajesh @ Nani S/o Premaiah, aged: about 34 years, Occu: Private Job, (A-6)
4. Yeliminati Shekhar S/o Devanandam, aged: about 34 years, Occu: Driver, (A-7)
5. Vankeshwaram Jyothaiah, S/o Pullaiah, aged: about 45 years, Occu: Driver, (A-8)
6. Vankeshwaram Prabhakar S/o Lingaiah, aged: about 28 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-9)
7. Vankeshwaram Suresh S/o Anjaiah, aged: about 25 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-10)
8. Yeliminety Prashanth S/o Naraiah, aged: about 23 years, Occu: Driver, (A-11)
9. Janthuka Laxmaiah S/o Jangaiah, aged: about 50 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-12)
10. Palleti Dilip S/o Sailu, aged: about 33 years, Occu: Photographer, (A-13)
11. Yelimineti Rakesh @ Chinnalu, S/o Manohar, aged: about 28 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-14)
12. Jajala Renaiah, S/o Naraiah, aged: about 32 years, Occu: Barbar (A-15)
13. Vankeshwaram Sadanada S/o Ramulu, aged: about 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, (A-16)
14. Yelimineti Anand S/o Jayaraju, aged: about 26 years, Occu: Coolie, (A-17)
15. Vankeshwaram Premaiah S/o Abraham, aged: about 55 years, Occu: Driver, (A-18)
16. Vankeshwaram Ramaswamy S/o Bakkaiah, aged: about 45 yerars, Occu: Agriculture, (A-19)
17. Musuku Srisailam S/o Narsimha, aged: about 26 years, Occu: Driver, R/o Veeraboonapally, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District (A-20)
18. Vankeshwaram Rajesh @ Kanthi S/o Anjaiah, aged: about 23 years, Occu: Coolie (A-21)
19. Kinnera Ramulu S/o Anjaiah, aged: about 40 years, Occu: Coolie, (A-22) 27
20. Yerra Krishna @ Jamboo S/o Ramaswamy, aged: about 26 years, R/o Konda Bheemanapally village, Deverakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District (A-23)
21. Yelimineti Venkatesh S/o Elishaiah, aged: about 26 years, Occu: Coolie, (A-24)
22. Yelimineti Naresh S/o Lingamaiah, aged: about 23 years, Occu: Coolie, (A-25)
23. Dasari Shekhar S/o Ramaswamy, aged: about 36 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o Damara Bheemanapally village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District (A-26)
24. Kurmati Lingaiah S/o Venkaiah, (A-27)
25. Kinnera Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu (A-28)
Petitioners No.1 to 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 are R/o Thowklapur Village, Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District.
… Petitioners/Accused No.4 to 28. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Dindi P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P. Srikanth Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners No.1 to 25/accused No.4 to 28 in this crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are for the offence under Sections 341, 353, 323
R/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 27-08-2020 at 10.30 hours the complainant Mudavath Kishan came to Police Station Dindi and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that on 26-08- 2020 afternoon at about 1200 hours one husband of the Thavaklapuram village
Sarpanch Vankeshwaram Venkataiah called phone to him and told to him as
Electricity Sub-station, Singarajupally (33/11KV) Duty operator Vemula 28
Venkateshwara Rao given I.C. to the 11 KV for laying Street Lights in
Thavaklapuram village and he started the Electricity 11 KV Sub-station at 10.30 hours without intimation given to him. On that he told to him, after knowing the total information he briefed the matter to him. Later the complainant knowing the “DHARNA PROGRAMME” information and he along with ADE Venkanna proceeded to the Electricity Sub-station, Singarajupally at about evening 6.00 hours one
Vankeshwaram Venkataiah and his son Chandra Shekar, Janthuka Ashok and some others are obstructed the legitimate duties of the complainant with their activities and at a time attacked on him. On seeing this, the complainant Son
Rajesh and his brother-in-law Gopi tried to rescue him from the clutches of them.
On the pretext the said persons are given fist blows to his son and his brother-in-law
Gopi. They received internal injuries and the complainant received injury in nose.
Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners No.1 to 25/accused No.4 to 28 submitted that petitioners/accused are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners
No.1 to 25/accused No.4 to 28.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioners
No.1 to 25/accused No.4 to 28 are granted anticipatory bail it would be difficult for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and hence he prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioners No.1 to 25/Accused No.4 to 28 are entitled for anticipatory bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress 29 and if at this stage the petitioners No.1 to 25/accused No.4 to 28 are granted anticipatory bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.1 to 25/accused
No.4 to 28 pending the investigation. The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of September, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
30
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 14nd day of September, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 278 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 84 of 2020 of Dindi P.S.
Between:
1. Nallavelli Rajesh Reddy S/o N. Kurma Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occu: Business, R/o Thowklapur village, Dindi Mandal,
2. Nallavelli Kurma Reddy S/o N. Venkat Ram Reddy, aged: about 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Thowklapur village, Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District.
… Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 3. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Dindi P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P. Srikanth Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 3 in this crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners/accused are for the offence under Sections 448, 143, 188 of IPC and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 27-08-2020 at 08.30 hours the complainant Nallabolu Srinivas
Reddy came to police station Dindi and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that on 26-08-2020 afternoon at about 1500 hours as per the directions of SI of
Police Dindi, he went to Singarajupally Electricity Sub-station for controlling the
Dharna Programme. After reaching the Singarajupally Electricity Sub-station, the villagers of Thavaklapuram i.e., 1. Nallavelli Rajesh Reddy, 2. Vankeshwaram
Venkataiah, 3. Nallavelli Kurma Reddy, 4. Alivela, 5. Chandrashekar, 31
Ashok and some others are formed into unlawful assembly and violated the Covid- 19 Government orders and gathered in front of Singarajupally Electricity Sub-station and illegally trespassed into the Electricity Sub-station and conducted “DHARNA
PROGRAMME” by violating Covid-19 Government Order by neglecting the orders and directions of the Complainant. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 3 submitted that petitioners/accused are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 3.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioners
No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 3 are granted anticipatory bail it would be difficult for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and hence he prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioners No.1 and 2/Accused No.1 and 3 are entitled for anticipatory bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.1 and 3 are granted anticipatory bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.1 and 2/accused
No.1 and 3 pending the investigation. The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of September, 2020.
32
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
33
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 67 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 46 of 2020 of Bommalaramaram P.S.
Between:
Yellaboina Bhanu S/o Yadagiri, age: 19 years, Occu: Pvt. Job, R/o H.No.4-111, SC Colony, Bommalaramaram village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
… Petitioner/Accused. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Bommalaramaram P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
34
::ORDER ::
6. This is the second bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused u/Sec.439
Cr.P.C. of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under
Sections Secs.376(2)(n), 417, 420, 493 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2012, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26-05-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 18-05-2020 at 13.00 hours the complainant Kum. Mailaram Manga came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which she stated that her SCC batch mate Yellaboina Bhanu used to make phone calls since last one year and said with her as he loves her and proposed several times as nuvvante nakistam. But she did not accept his proposal. After few days he used to induce her as pellante chesukunte nine chesukantanu, on believing his illusion words, she also fallen in love. Since then they both used to went for cinemas and other places on their convenient, by taking the same as advantage, he enjoyed her sexually at the house of said Bhanu at Bommalaramaram (v) and also at the house of her brother situated at Sainikpuri, Hyderabad. By not knowing her affair, her mother and brother started marriage alliances to her, on that she being proposal,
Bhanu refused to marry her. On asking the same he said with her in the mobile as you are belonging to Madiga community, if he got marry her, their parents will not allow him in to the house and also into their caste. On informing the same their parents placed the issue before the elders, where he reveals their affair before them, but he did not come forward to marry her on the reason that she is belongs to scheduled caste person. Hence the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called absent.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that the petitioner/Accused is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating 35 that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioner/Accused can be enlarged on bail?”
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is completed. Considering the period of remand undergone by the petitioner/accused and further considering the fact that material part of investigation is completed, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused is entitled to bail with conditions. Accordingly this point is answered.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioner/Accused is enlarged on bail on executing his self bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Bhongir. The petitioner/Accused shall also appear before the SHO PS
Bommalaramaram on every Sunday of every month between 10-00 a.m., to 12-00 noon till filing of the charge sheet.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda. Copy to:
3.The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir.
4.The S.H.O. Bommalaramaram P.S.
36
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 214 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 77 of 2020 of Chinthapally P.S.
Between:
1. Kadari Ravinder @ Ravi S/o Mallaiah, age: 24 years, Occu:
Student,
2. Kadari Srikanth S/o Mallaiah, age: 21 years, Occu: Student,
Both R/o Chinthapally village and Mandal.
… Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Chinthapally P.S.
37
Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
7. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C. of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC, the petitioners are in judicial custody since 02-07-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 29-06-2020 at 15.00 hours the complainant Kadari Alivelu came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint, in which she stated that there is a land dispute among the complainant family and her agnates i.e., sons of
Kadari Mallaiah namely since some time. On 29-06-2020 at about 11.30 hours her husband Kadari Balaiah and her son in law Pachipala Naresh both were came to their house at Chinthapally from Devarakonda, in the meantime her agnates keeping the land dispute in their mind with an intention to kill her husband, the sons of Kadari Mallaiah namely Kadari Ravinder @ Ravi, Kadari Srikanth, Kadari
Nagaraju and Kadari Mangamma all their family members were came to her house by abusing in filthy language and attacked on her husband with axe and stick. As a result, her husband Balaiah received severe bleeding injuries on his head, left leg, left hand and back. On observing the same the complainant and her son in law
Naresh were tried to rescue her husband, but the said persons also beat them.
Kadari Mangamma pushed on the ground and beat with hands and kicked. Hence, the present case.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners/accused
No.1 and 2 on bail.
4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
38
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 can be enlarged on bail?
7.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 70 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 61 of 2020 of Munugode P.S.
Between:
Gangula Venkanna S/o Bixamaiah, age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Kalvapalli village of Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District.
39 … Petitioner/Accused. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Munugode P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
8. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C.
of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections
Secs.417, 420, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 06-07-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 02-07-2020 at 1800 hours, the complainant Kum. Vantepaka
Pushpalatha lodged a complaint at Munugode Police Station that her villager by name Gangula Venkanna has enticed her and inducted her with deceitful words since last three years and promised to get her marry and also provided a phone (Samsung basic) to her and used to talk to her over phone and also participated in sexual intercourse with her and suffered her since last one year. The complainant
Vantepaka Pushpalatha insisted said Gangula Venkanna to get her marry by taking her away somewhere else since the matter went into notice of her family members and her family members are also giving troubles to her, then he denied marrying her saying that “Nuvvu Madiga Jathi Danivi, Neevu Nannu Ela Pelli Chesukuntanani namminaavu, Neevu Nakante Thakkuva Jathi Danivi, Nenu Ninnu
Pelli Chesukonu, Nee Daggara Vunna Phone Record Lu, Message Lu Neeku
Thelavakunda Nene Delete Chesinaanu, Neevu Yem Chesukuntavo Chesuko, Nee
Dikkunna Daggara Firyadu Chesuko” and threatened her. Hence, the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that the petitioner/Accused is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.
40
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/Accused can be enlarged on bail?
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused pending the investigation.
9. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
41
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 204 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 105 of 2020 of Nakrekal P.S.
Between:
Mandali Parvathalu S/o Kondaiah, age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Mukalapalli village of Gurrampode Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
… Petitioner/Accused No.6. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Nakrekal P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution 42
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 in this crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.6 are for the offence under Sections 420, 486, 487, 120(B) of IPC and Section 15(I) of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Section 7 of
Essential Commodities Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 22-06-2020 at 18.30 hours the complainant Dende Mallesh came to
Police Station and lodged a Telugu written petition in which he stated that he is doing Mandal Agricultural Officer at Nakrekal Mandal. On 22-06-2020 at about 17.00 hours, he and Nakrekal Police ASI P. Venkateshwarlu and police staff were rushed to the shop of Sri Anjaneya Seeds and Pesticides, H.No.6-99/5, old Udipi
Hotel Street, Nakrekal and shop owner is Sri Munaga Lingaiah was doing cotton seeds business at his shop. The complainant searched said shop and found spurious Raj cott and Sarpanch Gold brand cotton seeds which are belongs to un- licensed Akshara Seeds Company. The Lingaiah was purchased the above said spurious seeds from mediators i.e., Kurra Yadagiri and Madhusudhan Reddy with duplicate Akshara seeds bill bearing S.No.101, dated 03-06-2020 and same was kept in shop. He is verified the invoice found 15 bags which is containing 450 pockets of Sarpanch Gold brand, each one containing 450+120 grams. Total 570 grams and also mentioned in invoice Raj cott company seeds are 25 bags, which are containing total 750 pockets. Total 1200 spurious cotton seed pockets are transporting through Truck bearing No.TS 05UD 6804 to Munaga Lingaiah shop, each one containing 450 + 120 grams, total 570 grams having. Total 750 seeds pockets are purchased the Lingaiah through Kurra Yadagiri. At the time of searching he found 84 pockets of Raj cott brand which are belongs to Akshara 43 seeds, remaining 116 spurious cotton seeds are selling to the business mans and formers through Kurra Yadagiri. They are selling spurious seeds to their well known persons Gajji Shankar, Mandali Parvathalu, R/o Molkalapally village of Gurrampode
Mandal and Yadavelli nagaraju R/o Adavidevulapally village and Mandal. Hence the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 submitted that petitioner/accused No.6 is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 filed Disability
Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Nalgonda and contended that the petitioner/accused No.6 is suffering with 85% permanent disability and as such without aid and help of third person he cannot attend his personal activities.
Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.6.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioner/accused No.6 is granted anticipatory bail it would be difficult for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and hence he prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioner/ Accused No.6 is entitled for anticipatory bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and some of the accused are still absconding. A perusal of the Disability Certificate filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 shows that the petitioner meets physical requirements for discharge of his duties as mentioned in the certificate which include performing work by walking. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the Disability as contended by the petitioner/accused No.6 cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail pending 44 the investigation. The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
45
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 206 of 2020
in Cr. No. 119 of 2020 (P.S. Narayanapur)
BETWEEN:-
Muthyala Shivaleela W/o Vijay Kumar, Age: 40 years, Occu: Anganwadi Teacher, R/o Mahammadabad (V), Narayanapur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
…. Petitioner/Accused No.2.
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Narayanapur Rep. by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
46 …. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 in this crime. The offences alleged against the accused person are for the offence under Sections 307, 447, 427, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 29-06-2020 at 15.00 hours the complainant Muthyala Srinivas came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written petition in which he stated that he is having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.294/B2/1 at the outskirts of Mahammadabad village. On 29-06-2020 at 11.40 hours his villagers
Muthyala Vijay Kumar, Muthyala Shivaleela, Muthyala Dinesh, Muthyala Prabhas and relatives of Gollapally village of Valigona Mandal and one Sarvail villager were illegally trespassed into the land and cultivating their agriculture land. Meantime, his wife Muthyala Sujatha, Jashwanth, Goutham stopped them. Due to which, the alleged accused persons were attacked with iron rods and sticks and caused head injuries to his son Jashwanth and right hand injury to his wife and right finger injuries to his son Goutham with sticks and previously a case was registered against the aforesaid persons and also they threatened that they will kill them if they comes into the land. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submitted that petitioner/accused No.2 is innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioner/accused No.2 is granted anticipatory bail it would be difficult for the 47 investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and hence he prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioner/ Accused No.2 is entitled for anticipatory bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress with regard to the alleged involvement of petitioner/accused No.2 in the alleged offences and some more accused are still absconding. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 pending the investigation. The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
48
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 14th day of July, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 207 of 2020
in Cr. No. 63 of 2020 (P.S. Nakrekal)
BETWEEN:-
1. Ale Muthamma W/o Sathaiah, aged: 60 years, Occu: House wife, R/o Sri Nagar Colony, Nalgonda, presently R/o Padmashali colony, Vattipally village of Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. (A-2)
2. Pagidimarri Madhavi W/o Srinivasulu, aged: 35 years, Occu: Household, R/o H.No.20-108, Sharada Nagar Road No.2, Reddy brothers, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad (A-3) …. Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3.
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nakrekal Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the petitioners/accused and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
1. This is the third anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 in this crime. The offences alleged against the accused persons are for the offence under Sections 498-A, 324, 313 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
49
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 06-05-2020 at 19.00 hours the complainant Aley Bhavani came to
Police Station and lodged a Telugu typed petition in which she stated that on 26-11- 2017 her marriage was performed with Aley Harish in the presence of elders with their caste and customs. Her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash, 18 tulas gold and house articles to her husband as dowry. Afterwards their conjugal life running happily for a period of two months. Thereafter her husband addicted to bad habits and harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- on the abetment of her aunty and sister-in-law and necked away from home on 18- 04-2019. Afterwards her husband came to Nakrekal and stayed at her parents‟ house and gone to office. On 03-10-2018 she blessed with one male child, her child 21st day function, her husband beat her and leave her at her parents‟ house.
Later on 01-05-2019 her parents held a panchayat at her brother-in-law house at
Marriguda and leave her there. Thereafter, she and her husband take a room on rent at Sri Nagar Colony at Nalgonda and living there. Her husband addicted to alcohol and came to home and harassed her both physically and mentally for
additional dowry in the pressure of her aunty Muthyalamma. On 07-02-2020 her
husband again harassed for additional dowry and abused in filthy language, her aunty advised to set fire her, on which her husband burned with fire on her left hand.
She got second pregnancy, on that her husband and her aunty both are insulted by abusing filthy language and beat her with hands. On 15-01-2020 her husband took tablets from medical shop and same was forced into her for abortion. But her abortion was not completed and she received stomach pain. She consulted doctor at Rajeshwari Hospital at Nalgonda, doctor says as that tablet turned poisoned.
The same was informed to her parents. On 10-03-2020 at 10.00 hours her husband and her aunty both are abused her, both are leaved her and her son at rented house and they are went away and did not return. Hence, the presence case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 submitted that petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress and if at this stage the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are granted anticipatory bail it would be difficult for 50 the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation and hence he prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioners/ Accused No.2 and 3 are entitled for anticipatory bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress with regard to the alleged involvement of petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 in the alleged offences. Moreover, there are no change of circumstances from the dismissal of the earlier bail application. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 pending the investigation.
The point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and
pronounced by me on this the 14th day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
51
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 68 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 64 of 2020 of Kanagal P.S.
Between:
1. Bandamidi Nagaraju S/o Venkanna, aged: 21 years, Occu: Car Mechanic, R/o Bachannagudem (v), Kanagal (M), Nallagonda District.
2. Bandamidi Chakrapani @ Chakri S/o Kashaiah, aged: 28 years, Occu: Lorry Driver, N/o G. Yadavalli (V), Kanagal (M), R/o Bachannagudem (V), Kanagal (M), Nalgonda District.
3. Mannem Srinu S/o Bixamaiah, aged: 28 years, Occu: Tractor Driver and Agriculture, R/o Bachannagudem (v), Kanagal (M), Nalgonda District.
4. Bandameedi Ramanjaneyulu @ Anji S/o Lingaiah, aged: 20 years, Occu: Receptionist in Advik Dental Clinic, Shivajinagar, Nalgonda Town R/o Bandamidigudem, H/o Marthinenigudem (V), Kanagal (M), Nalgonda District.
5. Bandameedi Lingaiah S/o Narsimha, aged: 42 years, Occu: Lorry Driver and Agriculture, R/o Bandamidigudem H/o Marthinenigudem (V), Kanagal (M), Nalgonda District.
6. Parasanaboina Shankar S/o Lingaiah, aged: 24 years, Occu:
52
Road Roller Driver, R/o Boinapally village of Kanagal (M), Nalgonda District.
… Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Kanagal P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
9. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C. of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections Secs.147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 are in judicial custody since 02-07-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 29-06-2020 at 1000 hours the complainant Koppula Krishaniah lodged a Telugu written complaint at Kanagal Police Station stating that on 28-06- 2020 night at about 11.00 p.m., when he and his family members were sleeping in the premises of their house, his villagers viz., 1) Bandameedi Nagaraju, 2)
Bandameedi Chakrapani, 3) Mannem Srinu, 4) Bandameedi Anji, all are belonging to Tenugu caste have attacked on them with sticks and stones and abused them in caste name saying “Madiga Lanjakodukullaaraa Ee Gramamlo
Yelaa Brathukuthaaro Choosthamu” and created a panic situation due to which they have scared, and attacked on them indiscriminately. Koppula Krishnaiah,
Koppula Renuka, Koppula Bhanu, Koppula Ramu, Vanguri Chinna have sustained severe injuries. Further, they also damaged the doors, windows, sewing machine, bike and other household articles. Hence the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 submitted that 53 the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 can be enlarged on bail?
8. POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 are enlarged on bail, they may temper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 pending the investigation.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me on this the 14th day of July, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
54 55
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 60 of 2020
IN
Cr.No. 103 of 2020 of Ramannapet P.S.
Between:
7. Kotha Ramachandram S/o Late Yellaiah, age: 53 years, Occu: Hamali, R/o H.No.2-34, Neernemula village of Ramannapet mandal, Nalgonda District (A-2)
8. Donda Venkanna S/o Muthaiah, age: 33 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Mandra village of Narketpally mandal, Nalgonda District (A-5) … Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Ramannapet P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri P. Shyam Sunder, Advocate for the Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
10. This is second bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 and 5 u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C. of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections Secs.420, 376(2)(n), 493, 312, 504, 90 and 109 IPC and
Section 3(1)(r)(z) and Section 3(2)(V) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, the petitioners are in judicial custody since 09-06-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
On 25-05-2020 at 1700 hours the complainant Kum. Jinuka Prashanthi lodged a Telugu written complaint at Ramannapet P.S., in which she stated that one Kotha Nagaraju induced her with deceitful words of marriage from last 04 years. The said person married her in Goddess Maisamma at Balanagar, 56
Hyderabad at about 04 months ago. Since then, he continued conjugal life with her in the room at Doolapally (Kompelly). Her marriage was performed in the presence of friends in respect of Kotha Nagaraju namely Prashanth and Kamal.
Further, the room was taken on rent basis with the help of said persons. The couple lead conjugal life in said room. Kotha Nagaraju assured that he would marry her legally, after convincing parents of both said sides and brought her to
Ramannapet. From there, Nagaraju has made phone call to his parents (Kotha
Ramachandram and Kotha Laxmamma) and left there on a plea of convincing them. The said persons threatened that he would not marry Dalith caste woman.
Nagaraju took her to his sister‟s house at Mandra village and stayed for night.
Both his sister namely Donda Santhosha and brother-in-law Donda Venkanna threatened Nagaraju not to marry her as she belongs to Dalith community. On that, Nagaraju left her at sister‟s house at Janampally village with assurance that he would marry her after convincing his parents, sister and brother-in-law and did not turn up so far. Thereby he cheated her. On 19-05-2020 Nagaraju left her and did not dial phone call. Nagaraju escaped with instigation of his relatives on a plea that she belongs to Dalith community. Nagaraju has developed sexual relationship with her from last 04 months and also aborted her pregnancy and smashed her future. While both are leading conjugal life in the room, they got photographs and submitted herewith. Nagaraju has developed sexual relationship with her and performed marriage in the presence of his friends namely Prashanth and Kamal and cheated her with instigation of her relatives and escaped from there. Finally, she requested to take legal action against Kotha Nagaraju, his presents, sister and brother-in-law. Hence the present case.
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 submitted that the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioners/accused
No.2 and 5 on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 can be enlarged on bail?
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is 57 completed with regard to alleged involvement of petitioners/accused No.2 and 5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused No.2 and 5 are entitled to bail with conditions.
Accordingly this point is answered.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 are enlarged on bail on executing their self bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet. The petitioners/Accused No.2 and 5 shall also appear before the SHO PS
Ramannapet on every Sunday between 10-00 a.m., to 12-00 noon till filing of the charge sheet.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2020.
Sd/-
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge, for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda. Copy to:
5.The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet.
6.The S.H.O. Ramannapet P.S.
58
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 30th day of June, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 166 of 2020
in Cr. No. 98 of 2019 (P.S. Deverakonda)
BETWEEN:-
Juvva Suresh @ Suri S/o Eshwaraiah, age: 29 years, Occu: Private Job, R/o Kondamallepally village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
….Petitioner/Accused
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Deverkonda Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. G. Mohan, Counsel for the petitioner/accused and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
59
11. This is the first bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Section 302 of IPC, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11-05-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 30-03-2019 at 19.15 hours the complainant Md. Barkath Ali lodged a complaint stating that he was working as a Priest at Kadhar Shavali Darga since last two years, one unknown lunatic person age about 35 years staying in the room which was beside the Darga from last 45 days. Today i.e., 30-03-2019 at 6.00 a.m., the complainant visit the darga for cleaning the darga, at the time lunatic person sleeping in the room, after completion of his work he returned to home at 7.30 a.m.
At 6.00 p.m., he returned to the Darga at the time one person Syed Meer Arshad
Alam who visit the Khabrastan for prayers and identified one un-known lunatic male dead body at Khabrastan, the same information informed to him by phone. On said information the complainant immediately reached Karasthan and found one un- known male lunatic person dead body who stay the Darga beside room, which was bind a rope to his legs and found external injuries on the body of the deceased.
However, his death seems to be murder by some un-known persons with sharp weapon. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that accused petitioner/accused is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.
4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused can be enlarged on bail ?” 60
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress.
Moreover, the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused is grave and heinous in nature. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused pending the investigation.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2020
Crl.M.P.No. 61 of 2020
IN
61
Cr.No. 46 of 2020 of Bommalaramaram P.S.
Between:
Yellaboina Bhanu S/o Yadagiri, age: 19 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occu: Pvt. Job, R/o H.No.4-111, SC Colony, Bommalaramaram village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
… Petitioners/Accused. A N D
The State of Telangana rep. by S.H.O., Bommalaramaram P.S. Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused and Smt. K. Srivani, in-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
::ORDER ::
12. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C. of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections
Secs.376(2)(n), 417, 420, 493 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(w)(i) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2012, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26-05-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 18-05-2020 at 13.00 hours the complainant Kum. Mailaram Manga came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which she stated that her SCC batch mate Yellaboina Bhanu used to make phone calls since last one year and said with her as he loves her and proposed several times as nuvvante nakistam. But she did not accept his proposal. After few days he used to induce her as pellante chesukunte nine chesukantanu, on believing his illusion words, she also fallen in love. Since then they both used to went for cinemas and other places on their convenient, by taking the same as advantage, he enjoyed her sexually at the house of said Bhanu at Bommalaramaram (v) and also at the house of her brother situated at Sainikpuri, Hyderabad. By not knowing her affair, her mother and brother started marriage alliances to her, on that she being proposal,
Bhanu refused to marry her. On asking the same he said with her in the mobile as you are belonging to Madiga community, if he got marry her, their parents will not allow him in to the house and also into their caste. On informing the same their parents placed the issue before the elders, where he reveals their affair before them, but he did not come forward to marry her on the reason that she is belongs to scheduled caste person. Hence the present case.
62
3. Victim notice is given, victim is called present.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Accused submitted that the petitioner/Accused is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently stating that the investigation is still in progress and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Now point for consideration is :
“Whether the petitioners/Accused can be enlarged on bail?
8.POINT :
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may temper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused pending the investigation.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC. Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
63 64
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 16th day of June, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 169 of 2020
in Cr. No. 63 of 2020 (P.S. Nakrekal)
BETWEEN:-
Ale Harish S/o Late Sathaiah, aged: 30 years, Occu: Government Employee working as Sr. Assistant, Rural Water Supply at Suryapet R/o Sri Nagar Colony, Nalgonda Town N/o Rajapeta Thanda village of Marriguda Mandalam, Nalgonda District.
….Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nakrekal Rep.by Additional Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
65
13. This is second bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1 of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 498-A, 324, 313 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24-05-2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 06-05-2020 at 19.00 hours the complainant Aley Bhavani came to
Police Station and lodged a Telugu typed petition in which she stated that on 26-11- 2017 her marriage was performed with Aley Harish in the presence of elders with their caste and customs. Her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash, 18 tulas gold and house articles to her husband as dowry. Afterwards their conjugal life running happily for a period of two months. Thereafter her husband addicted to bad habits and harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and necked away from home on 18-04-2019. Afterwards her husband came to Nakrekal and stayed at her parents‟ house and gone to office. On 03-10-2018 she blessed with one male child, her child 21st day function, her husband beat her and leave her at her parents‟ house. Later on 01-05-2019 her parents held a panchayat at her brother-in-law house at Marriguda and leave her there.
Thereafter, she and her husband take a room on rent at Sri Nagar Colony at
Nalgonda and living there. Her husband addicted to alcohol and came to home and harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry in the pressure of her aunty Muthyalamma. On 21-11-2019 night her husband quarreling with her due to additional dowry and punched her head to the cot, in which, she received injury on her head.
She got treatment in Nalgonda Government Hospital. On 07-02-2020 her husband again harassed for additional dowry and abused in filthy language, her aunty advised to set fire her, on which her husband burned with fire on her left hand. She got second pregnancy, on that her husband and her aunty both are insulted by abusing filthy language and beat her with hands. On 15-01-2020 her husband took tablets from medical shop and same was forced into her for abortion. But her abortion was not completed and she received stomach pain. She consulted doctor at Rajeshwari Hospital at Nalgonda, doctor says as that tablet turned poisoned.
The same was informed to her parents. On 10-03-2020 at 10.00 hours her husband and her aunty both are abused her, both are leaved her and her son at rented house and they are went away and did not return. Hence, the presence case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that accused petitioner/No.1 is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
66
4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail vehemently and prayed to dismiss the bail application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is completed with regard to the alleged involvement of petitioner/accused No.1.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the period of remand undergone by the petitioner/accused No.1, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to bail with conditions.
Accordingly this point is answered.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioner/Accused No.1 is enlarged on bail on executing his self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall also
appear before the SHO PS Nakrekal on every Sunday of every month between 10- 00 a.m., to 12-00 noon till filing of the charge sheet.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of June, 2020.
Sd/-
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
Copy to:
7.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal.
8.The S.H.O. Nakrekal P.S.
67 68
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
69
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 13th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 1263 of 2019
in Cr. No. 177 of 2019 (Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
1. M. Ujwal Kumar @ Chintu S/o Chandra Shekar, age: 28 years, Occu: Cook in Smart bakery, opposite petrol bunk, Prakasham bazaar, Nalgonda, R/o Rani Dental Hospital, 4th floor at Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town.
2. P. Rakesh @ Rakhi S/o Lingaiah, age: 22 years, occu: Plumber, R/o H.No. 2-1-55/1, Hindupur, old city, Nalgonda Town and District.
3. S. Sandeep @ Gundu S/o Saidulu, age: 19 years, Occu: Worker in marble stone selling shop of Sharma at Marriguda bypass, R/o NTR Colony, Hyderabad road, Nalgonda Town and District.
….Petitioner/Accused Nos.3 to 5
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. S.R. Tagore, Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
1. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.3 to 5 of this crime, who are facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Section 307
R/w. 34 IPC., the petitioners are in judicial custody since 16-12-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 20-11-2019 at 21.00 hours, the petitioner Kamatikari Pavan Kalyan came to police station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that his co-worker accused No.2/ Basani Ramu and one Huda Kousar fell in love while they were working in Reliance Trends and after some days, they got breakup and the management also necked them out from the Reliance Trends and he also resigned from the Reliance Trends and now he is working in Pavan Nexa Showroom at
Nalgonda. Prior to 25 days of lodging this complaint, Huda Kousar made phone call 70 to him and requested to arrange glass racks since she opened Beauty Parlor, then he arranged with the same with the help of his friend. On 19-11-2019 accused No.2 made phone call to him and told him that they are arranging a party on the next day.
On 20-11-2019 at 11.00 hours accused No.2 made phone call to him and told to come near Sakshi office at the temple. Accordingly, he went there, there accused
Nos.1 to 4 and two unknown persons were present and they consumed alcohol and
Ganja, they offered to him to drink beer, then he refused to drink beer, all of sudden they by keeping in their mind that he linked Shanawaz with Huda Kousar for illegal intimacy and they beat him indiscriminately with hands and sticks and also thrown him on the ground on the directions of accused No.1. The two unknown persons brought petrol, then accused No.1 poured petrol on his body and attempted to murder him by litting fire, then he escaped from the clutches of the accused persons with the help of one Deva/LW-2. Hence, the presence case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 submitted that the accused Nos.3 to 5 are an innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioners /accused Nos.3 to 5.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner s/ Accused Nos.3 to 5 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Moreover, the accused No.1 is still absconding. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused
Nos.3 to 5 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2020.
Judge,
71
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 13th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 1262 of 2019
in Cr. No. 177 of 2019 (Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Basani Ramu S/o Sreenu, aged: 21 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o back side of Hanuman Temple, V.T. colony, Nalgonda town and District.
….Petitioner/Accused No.2
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
2. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1 of this crime, 72 who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Section 307 R/w. 34
IPC., the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16-12-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 20-11-2019 at 21.00 hours, the petitioner Kamatikari Pavan Kalyan came to police station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that his co-worker accused No.2/ Basani Ramu and one Huda Kousar fell in love while they were working in Reliance Trends and after some days, they got breakup and the management also necked them out from the Reliance Trends and he also resigned from the Reliance Trends and now he is working in Pavan Nexa Showroom at
Nalgonda. Prior to 25 days of lodging this complaint, Huda Kousar made phone call to him and requested to arrange glass racks since she opened Beauty Parlor, then he arranged with the same with the help of his friend. On 19-11-2019 accused No.2 made phone call to him and told him that they are arranging a party on the next day.
On 20-11-2019 at 11.00 hours accused No.2 made phone call to him and told to come near Sakshi office at the temple. Accordingly, he went there, there accused
Nos.1 to 4 and two unknown persons were present and they consumed alcohol and
Ganja, they offered to him to drink beer, then he refused to drink beer, all of sudden they by keeping in their mind that he linked Shanawaz with Huda Kousar for illegal intimacy and they beat him indiscriminately with hands and sticks and also thrown him on the ground on the directions of accused No.1. The two unknown persons brought petrol, then accused No.1 poured petrol on his body and attempted to murder him by litting fire, then he escaped from the clutches of the accused persons with the help of one Deva/LW-2. Hence, the presence case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submitted that the accused No.2 is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner /accused No.2.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused No.2 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with 73 the evidence of the prosecution. Moreover, the accused No.1 is still absconding.
Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.2 pending the investigation.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VI ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE: NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 13th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 03 of 2020
in Cr. No. 177 of 2019 (Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Perla Kishore S/o Dasharatha, age: 24 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o V.T. Colony, Nalgonda Town and District. ….Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of 74
Thota Shekhar, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and of Sri. G. Jawaharlal, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
3. This is the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 in this crime. The offences alleged against the accused person is for the offence under Section 307 r./w 34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 20-11-2019 at 21.00 hours, the petitioner Kamatikari Pavan Kalyan came to police station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that his co-worker accused No.2/ Basani Ramu and one Huda Kousar fell in love while they were working in Reliance Trends and after some days, they got breakup and the management also necked them out from the Reliance Trends and he also resigned from the Reliance Trends and now he is working in Pavan Nexa Showroom at
Nalgonda. Prior to 25 days of lodging this complaint, Huda Kousar made phone call to him and requested to arrange glass racks since she opened Beauty Parlor, then he arranged with the same with the help of his friend. On 19-11-2019 accused No.2 made phone call to him and told him that they are arranging a party on the next day.
On 20-11-2019 at 11.00 hours accused No.2 made phone call to him and told to come near Sakshi office at the temple. Accordingly, he went there, there accused
Nos.1 to 4 and two unknown persons were present and they consumed alcohol and
Ganja, they offered to him to drink beer, then he refused to drink beer, all of sudden they by keeping in their mind that he linked Shanawaz with Huda Kousar for illegal intimacy and they beat him indiscriminately with hands and sticks and also thrown him on the ground on the directions of accused No.1. The two unknown persons brought petrol, then accused No.1 poured petrol on his body and attempted to murder him by litting fire, then he escaped from the clutches of the accused persons with the help of one Deva/LW-2. Hence, the presence case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the accused No.1 is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner /accused No.1.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether thePetitioner / Accused No.1 is entitled for anticipatory 75 bail”?
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress.
Moreover, the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 is grave in nature. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
76
Dated, this, the 13th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 11 of 2020
in Cr. No. 168 of 2019 (Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Kalluri Rudramma D/o late Sathaiah, aged: 35 years, Occu: Kirana shop at Rathna Nagar, Choutuppal village, N/o Appajipeta village of Nalgonda Mandal and District. ….Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Konda Srinivas, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and of Smt K. Srivani, Spl. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
4. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1 of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC., the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17-11-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 1-11-2019 at 22-0 hours the complaint Kalluri Sasidulu lodged complaint stating that his father was died in the year 2004. They are three male and three female children to his parents. All are married, his mother by name
Kalluri Sathamma was staying alone in her own house i.e., situated at Appajipeta village. Since long time his mother was suffering with high BP., and Diabetic disease. Today i.e., on 1-11-2019 evening at about 5-30 hours his cousin brother by name Kalluri Lingaiah informed him through mobile phone that his mother fell on the ground in her house and found died, immediately he rushed to Appajiepta village and observed that his mother fell on the grounds and blood oozed from her nose and ears, ants covered her body. Thus the accused committed an offence under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC.,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the accused No.1 is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner /accused No.1.
77
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress.
Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 are grave and heinous in nature and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, she may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge, for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
78
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 13th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 1210 of 2020
in Cr. No. 160 of 2019 (Konda Mallepally P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Bontha Nagendra Babu @ Nagaraju S/o late Janaiah, Aged: 23 years, Occu: Student, R/o Mukundapuram village of Munagala Mandal, Suryapet District. ….Petitioner/Accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Konda Mallepally Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of N. Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and of Smt K. Srivani, Spl. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
5. This is first bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1 of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 302, 201
R/w. 34 IPC., the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08-11-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 05-11-2019 at about 15.00 hours the complainant Nenavath Naresh came to police Station Kondamallepally and lodged a Teluguj written petition in which he stated that on 29-10-2019 at about night 02.00 hours his brother‟s wife
Nenavath Swapna came to him and noticed that his brother Nenavath Ramesh has not wake up from the sleeping in drunken condition, on which the complainant and his brother Shiva both came to there and tried to wake up, but he did not wakeup, they confirmed he was died naturally and then completed his funerals by burning.
One year back Nenavath Ramesh eking his livelihood went to Malakpet Hyderabad along with family and doing watch men duty in a apartment. After some time the deceased wife Swapna developed illegal intimacy with neighbour house worker namely Nagaraju, on knowing the same the deceased shifted his family to native village Chinthachettu thanda and living here coolie works. On 29-10-2019 Nenavath
Ramesh was died in the night at 02.00 A.M., later they preparing his funeral 79 occasion, when bathing the dead body, complainant uncle‟s son Nenavath Beemu observed a black marked injury on deceased neck taken photographs on his mobile, later Beemu exposed the photograph after funeral before him, the complainant found black marked injury at around neck of deceased in the photograph and observed suspicious behavior of Swapna, they confirmed that his brother‟s wife Swapna and her boy friend Nagaraju were killed his brother by tying his neck with a cord or wire. Thus the accused committed an offence under
Sections 302, 201 R/w. 34 IPC.,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that the accused No.1 is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner /accused No.1.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.1 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that investigation is still in progress.
Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 are grave and heinous in nature and if at this stage, the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of January, 2020.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge, for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
80
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 10th day of January, 2020.
Crl.M.P.No. 1267 of 2019
in Cr. No. 168 of 2019 (Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Madagoni Andalu, W/o.Chandraiah, Aged: 45 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: House hold, R/o.Reddibavi Village of Choutuppal mandal. ….Petitioner/Accused No.3
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Puijala Karthik, Counsel for the accused No.3 and of Smt K. Srivani, Spl. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till 81 this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
6. This is fourth bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.3 of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC., the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17-11-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 1-11-2019 at 22-0 hours the complaint Kalluri Sasidulu lodged complaint stating that his father was died in the year 2004. They are three male and three female children to his parents. All are married, his mother by name
Kalluri Sathamma was staying alone in her own house i.e., situated at Appajipeta village. Since long time his mother was suffering with high BP., and Diabetic disease. Today i.e., on 1-11-2019 evening at about 5-30 hours his cousin brother by name Kalluri Lingaiah informed him through mobile phone that his mother fell on the ground in her house and found died, immediately perused to Appajiepta village and observed that his mother fell on the grounds and blood oozed from her nose and ears, ants covered her body. Thus the accused committed an offence under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC.,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that the accused No.3 is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner /accused No.3.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.3 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is completed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner/accused No.3 is a woman and further considering the period of remand undergone by the petitioner/accused No.3, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.3 is entitled to bail with conditions.
Accordingly this point is answered.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is enlarged on bail on executing her self bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty 82 thousand only ) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of Judicial
First Class Magistrate, (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda. The petitioner /Accused
No.3 shall also appear before the SHO PS Nalgonda Rural on every first and third
Saturday between 10-00 a.m., to 12-00 noon till filing of the charge sheet.
Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of January, 2020.
Sd/-
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge, for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda. Copy to:
9.The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court) Nalgonda
10.The S.H.O. Nalgonda Rural P.S.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SCs/STs (POA) ACT
AT NALGONDA.
Present: Sri M.Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court,
83
Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act at
Nalgonda.
Dated, this, the 16th day of December, 2019.
Crl.M.P.No. 1200 of 2019
in Cr. No.168 of 2019 ( Nalgonda Rural P.S)
BETWEEN:-
Madagoni Andalu, W/o.Chandraiah, Aged: 45 years, Occ: House hold, r/o.Reddibavi Village of Choutuppal mandal. ….Petitioner/Accused No.3
And
The State of Telangana represented by through Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda Rural Rep.by In charge Additional Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
…. Respondent/Prosecution
This petition is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Puijala Karthik, Counsel for the accused No.3 and of Smt K. Srivani, Spl. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
:: ORDER ::
7. This is second bail petition filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.3 of this crime, who is facing accusation in this crime for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC., the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17-11-2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
That on 1-11-2019 at 22-0 hours the complaint lodged complaint stating that his father was died in the year 2004. They are three male and three female children to his parents. All are married, his mother by name Kalluri Sathamma was staying alone in her own house i.e., situated at Appajipeta village. Since long time his mother was suffering with high BP., and Diabetic disease. Today i.e., on 1-11-2019 evening at about 5-30 hours his cousin brother by name Kalluri Lingaiah informed him through mobile phone that his mother fell on the ground in her house and found died, immediately perused to Appajiepta village and observed that his mother fell on the grounds and blood oozed from her nose and ears, ants covered her body. Thus the accused committed an offence under Sections 302, 201, 109, 380 R/w. 34 IPC.,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that 84 the accused No.3 is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and prayed to grant bail to the petitioner /accused No.3.
4. The learned in charge Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail vehemently, stating that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the Petitioner / Accused No.3 can be enlarged on bail ?”
7. Point:
Perused the record, which shows that the investigation is still in progress and there are no change of circumstances from the dismissal of earlier bail application. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner /accused
No.3. Accordingly this point is answered.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed
Dictated to Personal Assistant (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of December, 2019.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions Judge, for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
85 86
Order pronounced vide separate order in the open court.
In the result, the petition is, dismissed.
FAC. SSJ 87
Crl.M.P.No. 1200 of 2019
in 88
Cr. No.168 of 2019 ( Nalgonda Rural P.S)
Dt. 16-12-2019.
Order pronounced vide separate order in the open court.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
SSJ /// T.C.F.B.O/// 89
Chief Administrative Officer
Judge, Family Court-Cum-
VI Addl. Sessions Court, Nalgonda.
Heard both sides. Perused the record, which shows that material part of investigation is completed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the period of remand under gone by the petitioners /A-1 and
A-2 and considering the fact that the material part of investigation is completed. This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/ A-1 and A-2 are entitled to bail with conditions.
In the result, the petition is allowed, the petitioners /Accused No.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail on executing their self bonds for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only ) with each two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda. The petitioners /Accused No.1 and 2 shall also appear before the SHO PS Chinthapally on every Sunday between 10-00 a.m., to 12-00 noon till filing of the charge sheet.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Gr.I), transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of December , 2019.
Judge,
Family Court-Cum-VI Addl.
90
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
FAC.Special Sessions
Judge,
for S.Cs/S.Ts., (POA) Act Nalgonda.
Copy to:
11.The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda.
12.The S.H.O. Chinthapally P.S.