Dr.S.Rajani

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge :: Prakasam at Markapur

PRESENT: Dr.SMT. SATTARU RAJANI VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur.

Monday, this the 19th day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2021

(Crime No.122/21 of Cumbum Police Station)

Between:

Sk. Abdul Khadar @ Abdul @ Babulla, s/o Khadar vali, aged 36 years, muslim by caste, Nallabanda street, Giddalur town, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/ Accused

And

State : SHO, Cumbum Police Station, represented by its Addl., Public Prosecutor, Markapur … Respondent/Complainant

The petition came upon for hearing before this court on 16.7.2021 through video conference in the presence of Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for the petitioner/accused; and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State/Respondent and on hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. This is a petition filed Under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.122/2021 of Cumbum Police station, to enlarge him on bail, which was registered for the offence u/secs.498-A, 307 and 435 IPC

2.(a)As per the case of prosecution, the marriage of the defacto complainant took place with the petitioner/accused about 15 years back and they were blessed with two children, the accused was addicted to vices and used to 2Crl.M.P.128/2021 harass her both physically and mentally and necked out her several times from matrimonial home, due to which, she used to stay in her parents house and several panchayats were held before the elders and at the intervention of elders she used to join in the company of the petitioner, but within short period again he used to harass her and two months prior to 30.5.2021, he quarreled with her and necked her out from his house, as such, she went to her parents house and staying there along with her children.

(b) While so, on 30.5.2021 the petitioner/accused went to his in-laws house in Turimella village and quarreled with his wife and abused her and her parents and while leaving that place he threatened her that he will see her end.

Again on the next day i.e., on 31.5.2021, during night time at about 12.30 hours, he came to her parents house and quarreled with her and her parents and abused them in filthy language with loud voice and he burnt motor cycle of her brother with petrol.

(c)On hearing cries, the defacto complainant and her family members came out of the house and observed that the motorcycle of her brother was in flames and accused was pouring petrol, they tried to put off the flames, in the mean time, the accused stabbed her brother with a knife on the left side of chest and caused bleeding injuries near left side lungs and pushed the injured, on account of that, her brother fell down and received bleeding injury on his right hand. Later, the defacto complainant, her family members and neighbors saved her brother from the hands of the petitioner/accused. Later, accused left the place.

(d)The injured was shifted to government hospital, Giddalur, after first aid, on the advice of doctor, he was shifted to Kurnool General Hospital. Later, the defacto complainant gave report to police, on that, case was registered against the 3Crl.M.P.128/2021 accused. During investigation, police arrested the accused on 6.6.2021 and produced him before the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Giddalur, since then accused is in judicial custody.

3.(a)Now, the petitioner contends that he did not commit any offence, he lead happy marital life with his wife for a period 15 years and they were blessed with two children and for the last 15 years, there are no complaints against him.

Unfortunately, a case was registered against him, even though there was no fault on his part. After birth of second child, his wife started neglecting him and used to go to her parents house frequently without informing to him and used to stay there for longer period and in every occasion, he used to go there and used to bring his wife and children to his house with great difficulties. She and her brother and parents used to abuse the petitioner in the presence of neighbours.

(b)Four or five months back, she went to her parents house and refused to join with him, inspite of his requests and even on the date of incident also, he went to the house of his in-laws and requested them to send his wife and children along with him by expressing his difficulties in the absence of his wife. At that time, his brothers-in-law and parents-in-law abused him and quarreled with him. During that time, his brother-in-law Nayab Rasool (injured) came upon him with a stick, then the petitioner pushed him aside, due to that he fell on an agriculture instrument called ‘gorru’ and received bleeding injury.

(c)He further contended that he never intended to kill his brother-in-law or his family members. With a view to keep him in judicial custody, they created a false story taking advantage of injury, to get rid off him. He never caused any mischief to the motorcycle of his brother-in-law.

4Crl.M.P.128/2021

(d)He further contended that he is running a mobile shop in Giddalur, his aged parents are depending upon him. If he is in jail continuously, his parents will suffer for want of maintenance, as there is no other source of income. The earlier bail applications filed by him in Crl.M.P. 100/21 & 112/2021 were dismissed on 22.6.2021 & 5.7.2021 on the ground that investigation is in progress. Now, investigation might have been completed, material witnesses were already examined. He has got fixed place of abode and ready to furnish solvent sureties, investigation might have been completed, hence he requested the court to enlarge him on bail.

4.Notice to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is given.

5.Heard arguments of both sides through video conference. The respondent police filed case diary through C.M.S. police, along with counter of Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum P.S.

6.Now the point for determination is : “Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled for grant of bail at this stage”?

7.P O I N T :

(a)The learned counsel for petitioner advanced arguments in the similar lines as that of the contents of the petition. He further submitted that the petitioner was not intending to cause any injury or to kill the victim. In a quarrel between the petitioner and his brother-in-law, when the injured was trying to beat him with a stick, he pushed the injured, who fell on agricultural instrument and sustained injury, except that the petitioner did not commit any offence.

5Crl.M.P.128/2021

(b)He further submitted that the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P. 100/21 & 112/2021 were dismissed on 22.6.2021 & 5.7.2021 on the ground that investigation is in progress, but after arrest of the petitioner, there was no further progress at all and as material witnesses were already examined, injured was already discharged from hospital, wound certificate of the injured was already received, property was also received, hence, there is no question of tampering with the evidence or investigation.

(c)He further submitted that at present there is alarming raise of Covid 19 cases again, petitioner has been in judicial custody since 6.6.2021, if the petitioner is detained in jail further period, it may effect his health also, hence, he requested the court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8.On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed for granting bail stating that investigation is pending, some more witnesses are to be examined. He fairly conceded that victim was already discharged from hospital and wound certificate was received, but he submitted that reports from Regional

Forensic Science Lab and Forensic Science Lab are pending from concerned departments. Several serious allegations are made against the petitioner, with an intention to kill his brother-in-law, he stabbed him with a knife and also burnt motorcycle by pouring kerosene. If at this stage, petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, it may hamper the investigation and he may threaten the witnesses, and he may commit more offences, in view of family disputes, hence, he opposed for granting bail.

9.I have carefully gone through the CD and the counter containing remarks of the investigating officer and also the orders passed in Crl.M.P. 100/2021 & 6Crl.M.P.128/2021 112/2021, which were dismissed on the ground that investigation is in progress and also considering the gravity of the offence, but after dismissal of earlier bail applications, there was no further progress in investigation, which shows that material witnesses were already examined, material part of investigation is completed.

10.Considering the fact that the petitioner has got fixed place of abode and has been in judicial custody since 6.6.2021 and as there was no further progress in the investigation, in this covid 19 pandemic situation, it is not desirable to keep the petitioner in judicial custody for further period, hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

11.Hence point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur.

The learned Magistrate is directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R.O.C.No.192/SO/2020, dated 01.07.2020, and also the other circulars issued from time to time, while accepting the sureties.

13.The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Station House Officer of

Cumbum police station twice in a week i.e., on every Wednesday and Saturday in between 10-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. for a period of two months or till charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to 7Crl.M.P.128/2021 any police officer and shall not tamper with the evidence. In case of violation of the above condition, the bail shall be cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me, this the 19th day of July, 2021

Sd/- S.Rajani

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MARKAPUR.

Copy to :

1. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The Station House Officer, Cumbum Police station,

3. Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for petitioner/accused

True Copy

//By Order//

Superintendent VI Addl. District & Sessions Court Markapur

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge :: Prakasam at Markapur

PRESENT: Dr. SMT.SATTARU RAJANI VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Markapur.

Friday, this the 16th day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2021

(Crime No.117/2021 of Markapur Rural police station)

Between :

Kotha Srinivasa Reddy, s/o late Venkata Reddy, aged 52 years, reddy by caste, business, r/o Darimadugu village, Markapur mandal, now he is residing in Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A.5

And

State : SHO, Markapur Rural Police Station, represented by its Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur … Respondent/Complainant

The petition came upon for hearing before this court on 13.7.2021 through video conference in the presence of Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for the petitioner/A.5 and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/

Respondent and on hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. This is a petition filed Under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner/A.5 in Crime No.117/2021 of Markapur Rural police station, to grant anticipatory bail to him.

2.(a)As per the case of prosecution, there are disputes between the defacto complainant and one Kotha Srinivas Reddy (A.5) with regard to the 2 Crl.M.P.114/2021 execution of promissory notes and two weeks prior to the incident, the said

Kotha Srinivas Reddy (A.5) filed a suit against the defacto complainant for recovery of the amount on the foot of promissory notes. On receipt of notice from the court, he came to know that A.1 – Gumma Punna Rao signed as witness in the suit promissory note, hence, he went to the house of A.1 along with his father to question him and then A.1 and his brother’s son, who are the petitioners 1 and 2 herein beat him and his father, on that they gave report to police.

(b)While so, on 21.6.2021 at about 6 a.m. the defacto complainant came to know through one Gumma Venkateswarlu that his father was lying on a cot in the house in Darimadugu village with bleeding injuries all over his body and that the said Gumma Venkateswarlu witnessed the petitioners and A.4 –

Gumma Jyothi Babu, while they were escaping from that place, then immediately he came to Darimadugu village from Chennareddy palle village and observed his father with injuries. On enquiries, his father stated that petitioners and A.4 attacked him at about 4.30 a.m. while he was alone in the house and caused bleeding injuries to him with a knife and blade, later defacto complainant shifted his father/injured to government hospital, Markapur.

(c)He came to know that at the instigation of Kotha Srinivas Reddy (A.5), petitioners and A.4 attempted to kill his father. As his father was not in a position to give statement, he gave statement to police, who visited the hospital, on receipt of hospital intimation, on that a case was registered against the petitioners, A.4 and A.5 and A.1 to A.3 were arrested on 28.6.2021, since then the petitioners are in judicial custody.

3 Crl.M.P.114/2021

3.(a)Now, the petitioner contends that he is innocent, he did not commit any offence, he never abetted other accused to commit offence at any ponit of time. Infact, the complainant Ganga Raju borrowed an amount of Rs.4,99,000/- from him on 23.4.2018 for his family necessities and executed promissory note in favour of petitioner agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. in the presence of A.1, B.Rama Subba Reddy and one Lokasani Srinivasula

Reddy, later, he failed to discharge the debt, hence, the suit in O.S. 229/2021 was filed along with a petition to attach properties of the complainant in

I.A.317/2021. After receipt of summons from the court, in order to blackmail and threaten the petitioner and attestor of the promissory note, the defacto complainant foisted this false case against the petitioner and others by using political power and influence.

(b)He further contended that the complainant demanded the petitioner to withdraw the suit by receiving less amount, for which he did not accept, hence, he warned the petitioner that he will see that the petitioner and attestor of the promissory note in jail, hence, he foisted this false case.

(c)He further contended that though he is native of Darimadugu village, but he has been staying in Ongole by doing business there, the respondent/police are making calls to him and his family members to come to the police station immediately, otherwise, they will see his end and due to the attitude of the police towards the petitioner and his family members, the petitioner is apprehending danger in the hands of the police. The police already arrested the principal offender, who actually participated in the commission of offence as per the prosecution. At present, the presence of the petitioner may 4 Crl.M.P.114/2021 not be required before police, as 8 material witnesses were already examined as on the date of arrest of A.1 to A.3.

(d)He further contended that he is law abiding citizen and never quarreled with the complainant and he followed the legal procedure for recovery of the amount by filing a suit, which itself shows his conduct and nature, he is having good reputation in public, if he is arrested by police and kept in jail, his reputation will be damaged, even without any fault on his part.

He has got fixed place of abode and ready to furnish solvent sureties for his release on bail, in the event of his arrest, hence, he requested the court to grant anticipatory bail to him by directing the police to release him, in the event of his arrest.

4.Notice to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is given.

5.Heard arguments of both sides through video conferencing. The respondent police filed case diary through C.M.S. police, along with counter of

Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural P.S.

6.Now the point for determination is : “Whether the petitioner/A.5 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage”?

7.POINT :

The learned counsel for petitioner advanced arguments in the similar lines as that of the petition averments. He further submitted that injured was already discharged from the hospital. Infact the petitioner is not responsible for 5 Crl.M.P.114/2021 the injuries to the father of the defacto complainant, he never instigated A.1 to

A.4 to commit the offence, hence, he requested the court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

8.On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed for granting bail stating that A.1 to A.4 attempted to kill the father of the complainant with a knife and blade, which were seized subsequently, at the instigation of petitioner/Kotha Srinivas Reddy (A.5), with whom the defacto complainant has got monetary disputes and he filed suit against the defacto complainant for recovery of the amount and they intentionally attacked the father of the defacto complainant with a knife and blade at the instigation of

Kotha Srinivas Reddy (A.5) attempted to kill him and the injured is still undergoing treatment and not yet discharged from hospital and the accused is absconding and investigation is pending and some more witnesses are to be examined, the statement of the victim is to be recorded u/sec.164 Criminal

Procedure Code. He submitted that if at this stage, anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may threaten the witnesses and victim, which may hamper the investigation, hence, for all the above reasons, he strongly opposed for granting bail.

9.I have carefully gone through the CD and the counter containing remarks of the investigating officer. It appears that investigation is in progress and not yet completed, statement of victim is to be recorded u/sec.164 Criminal

Procedure Code, the injured is not yet discharged from hospital as per CD, but 6 Crl.M.P.114/2021 as per the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, injured was already discharged from hospital.

10.Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and facts and circumstances of the case, as investigation is in progress, statement of victim is not yet recorded u/sec.164 Cr.P.C and injured is not yet discharged from hospital, hence, at this stage, it is not desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, petition is liable to be dismissed.

11.Hence point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 16th day of July, 2021

Sd/- S.Rajani

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT MARKAPUR.

Copy to :

1. The Addl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

2. The Station House Officer, Markapur Rural Police station,

3. Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for petitioner/A.5 7 Crl.M.P.114/2021

True Copy// // By Order //

Superintendent VI Addl. District & Sessions Court, Prakasam at Markapur.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge :: Prakasam at Markapur

PRESENT: Dr. Smt S.Rajani VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No.120 of 2021

(Crime No.172/2021 of Cumbum Police Station)

Between:

Syed Madar Saheb, s/o Sather, aged 53 years, r/o Cumbum town, Cumbum mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/ A.2

And

State : Station House Officer, Cumbum P.S. represented by its Addl., Public Prosecutor, Markapur … Respondent/Complainant

The petition came upon for hearing before this court on 19.7.2021 through video conference in the presence of Sri K.Narendranath, Advocate for the petitioner/A.2; and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State/Respondent and on hearing the counsel for both parties and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

1. This is a petition filed Under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner/A.2 in Crime No.172/2021 of Cumbum Police station, to enlarge him on bail, which was registered for the offence u/sec.307 r/w 34 IPC.

2.As per the case of prosecution, on 2.7.2021 at about 13.00 hours, petitioner and A.1 came to tea stall and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, 2Crl.M.P.120/2021 on that the defacto complainant questioned them, later, they went to their houses.

Subsequently, the defacto complainant went to the house of accused and asked them why they abused him, then, they beat him on his face, as a result, he received swelling injury. Again on the same day, at about 16.00 hours, the petitioner and A.1 came to Tea stall and picked up quarrel with defacto complainant, A.1 stabbed him with a knife on his shoulder and caused bleeding injury.

3.(a)Now, the petitioner contends that he did not commit any offence, he is innocent, infact, A.1 and defacto complainant consumed liquor and altercated with each other in drunken state of mind, on seeing the incident, he went there and beat him and pacify the matter.

(b)He further contended that he is a strong supporter of Telugudesam

Party and social worker in Cumbum town, due to political rivalry, he was falsely implicated in this case, the defacto complainant received simple injuries and was discharged from hospital, all the material witnesses were examined and entire investigation is completed. The petitioner has got fixed place of abode and has got solvent sureties, hence, he requested the court to enlarge him on bail.

4.Notice to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is given.

5.Heard arguments of both sides through video conferencing. The respondent police filed case diary through C.M.S. police, along with counter of Sub

Inspector of Police, Cumbum.

3Crl.M.P.120/2021

6.Now the point for determination is : “Whether the petitioner/A.2 is entitled for grant of bail at this stage”?

7.P O I N T :

The learned counsel for petitioner advanced arguments in the similar lines as that of the contents of the petition and finally requested the court to enlarge the petitioner/A.2 on bail.

8.On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed for granting bail stating that the petitioner along with A.1 attacked the defacto complainant twice in furtherance of their common intention, they also abused him, A.1 stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife on his chest towards left side, which shows their common intention to commit murder. Investigation is in progress. If at this stage, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may threaten the witnesses, which would tamper the investigation. A.1 is a rowdy sheeter, A.2 is the brother of A.1, hence, he strongly opposed for granting bail.

9.I have carefully gone through the CD and the counter containing remarks of the investigating officer. It appears that investigation is in progress, some more witnesses are to be examined.

10. Considering the gravity of the offence and facts and circumstances of the case, as investigation is in progress, at this stage, it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, petition is liable to be dismissed.

4Crl.M.P.120/2021

10.Hence point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me, this the 22nd day of July, 2021

Sd/- S.Rajani

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MARKAPUR.

Copy to :

1. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The Station House Officer, Cumbum Police station,

3. Sri K.Narendranath, Advocate for petitioner/A.2

True Copy

//By Order//

Superintendent VI Addl. District & Sessions Court Markapur

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::: MARKAPUR

Present: Dr. Smt S.Rajani

VI Additional District Judge, Markapur

Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021

E.P.287 of 2019 in A.R.C. No.198 of 2016

(against J.Dr No.2)

Between:

M/s shriram City Union Finance Limited, Darsi, rep.by its GPA P.Sreenu Basha, s/o Khasim Khan, aged about 47 years, Hindu, 1st floor, Varaprasad complex, besides East KB Restaurant, trunk road, Ongole. .....D.Hr./Petitioner

And

1.Pathan Sulthan, s/o Mohamman Khan, H.No.6-36, near Maszid, Padamatipalem, Podili mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Mulla Nayab Rasool, s/o Mahaboob Subhani, working as diesel helper, mechanical department, emp.No. 01511142, SC railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....J.Drs./Respondents

This Execution petition is filed by the D.Hr Company against the 2nd J.Dr in pursuance of the Arbitration Award passed in Arbitration Case No.198/2016 for attachment of the salary of 2nd J.Dr stating that the 2nd J.Dr is government employee and drawing salary from his garnishee.

This E.P. is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri

J.S.R.Krishna Sastry, Advocate for Decree Holder; 2nd J.Dr died; basing on the memo filed by the counsel for D.Hr., this court delivered the following :-

// O R D E R //

Counsel for D.Hr filed a memo not pressing the E.P. as J.Dr No.2 died. Memo is recorded. EP is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 20th day of July, 2021

Sd/- S.Rajani

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MARKAPUR

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

- Nil -

VI ADJ

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge :: Prakasam at Markapur

PRESENT: Dr.SMT.SATTARU RAJANI VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Markapur.

Friday, this the 23rd day of July, 2021

Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2021

(Crime No.114 of 2021 of Peddaraveedu Police Station)

Between:

Duggempudi Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o Narayana Reddy, aged 39 years, Hindu, private employee, r/o Obulakka palli village of Peddaraveedu mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/ Accused

And

State : SHO, Peddaraveedu P.S. represented by its Addl., Public Prosecutor, Markapur … Respondent/Complainant

This is a petition filed Under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.114/2021 of Peddaraveedu police station, to grant anticipatory bail to him.

The petition came upon for hearing before this court on this day through video conference in the presence of Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for the petitioner/accused; and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent; basing on the memo filed by the counsel for petitioner, this court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

Matter is called through video conferencing. Counsel for petitioner filed a memo not pressing the petition as the respondent/police stated that they are going to follow the procedure contemplated u/sec.41 Cr.P.C. Memo is recorded. Petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me, this the 23rd day of July, 2021

Sd/- S.Rajani

VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

PRAKASAM AT MARKAPUR.

2Crl.M.P.127/2021

True Copy

//By Order//

Superintendent VI Addl. District & Sessions Court Markapur