V.Sreenivas Sivaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.

DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT: SRI V.SREENIVAS SIVARAM

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

Crl.M.P.No. 831 OF 2018

IN 

Crime No.161 OF 2018

 (Of P.S. Chivvemla)

BETWEEN:

1. Dosakayala Phani Kumar @ Phani Nayudu s/o Nagaiah, aged:29 years, Occ: BJYM, Suryapet Town r/o near Manna Church, Sairam Nagar, Colony, Suryapet Town

2. Maheshwaram Sandeep Chandra @ Sandeep Nehatha S/o Jaya Chandra, aged:30 years, Occ: BJP Mandal Party President R/o Thirumalagiri Village and Mandal of Suryapet Town

3. Bittu Nagaraju S/o Bajaraiah @ Dasharadha, aged:29 years, Occ: BJYM District Leader R/o Thuljaraopeta village of Chivvemla Mandal, present at Chintha Chervu Colony, Suryapet town

4. Jogam Srinivas @ Srinu S/o Venkaiah, aged:44 years, Occ: Masaon R/o Balaji Nagar, Suryapet Town and District

5. Jogam Santosh S/o Srinivas @ Srinu, aged:20 years, Occ: RTC Mechanic (Trainer) R/o Balajinagar, Suryapet Town and District

6. Pabbu Uday Kumar @ Uday S/o Anjaiah, aged:25 years, Occ: Car Driver R/o Thirumalagiri village and Madnal, Suryapet District

7. Bellamkonda Narayan S/o Manikyam, aged:32 years, Occ: Hamali & BJP Leaer R/o Thummalapenaphad village of Athmakur­S Mandal, Suryapet District

8. Cherukupalli Sandeep @ Sanjeeva S/o Bhadraiah, aged:25 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Pillapalamri village, Suryaept Town Mandal and District ­­PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 TO 8

A N D

The State of Telangana, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, Suryapet(through SHO., Chivvemla) ­­RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. 

This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri D.Umapathi, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Grandhi Venkateshwarlu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, till this day this court made the following: 

O R D E R

2

1. This is a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioners/A­1 to A­9 on bail in Cr.No.161 of 2018 of P.S. Chivvemla for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 120 (B) r/w.149 IPC and

Section 25 (1) of Arms Act on the ground that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry and that they have fixed abodes and that their entire family members dependants on them for their livelihood and that entire investigation has been completed except for filing of charge sheet. Hence, the petition.

2.Notice given to Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application.

3.Heard from both sides.

4. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the petitioners/A­1 to A­8 are entitled for bail?

POINT:­

5.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that; one D.Naresh belongs to T.R.S party made comment in the Face Book against BJP party, to which A­10 also given a reply against T.R.S. Party due to which two cases in Cr.Nos.95/2018 and 147/2018 under Sections 66­D of

Information Technology Act were registered, due to which A.Narender has bore grudge against A­10 and thereafter A.Narender and his associates have beat A­10 and warmed them not to post against any comments against T.R.S. party and on 19.7.2018 when

A­1 was near Sharabamma Hotel, A.Narender attacked him on the ground that he was working against him, due to which A­1 and his friends on 20.7.2018 at 6.00 P.M formed into un­lawful assembly, and purchased four paper cutting knives and arranged for transportation and went to Kudakuda village and when A.Narender was coming after completing cricket the accused have attacked him with paper cutting knives and with sticks.

3

On perusal of the record it is clear that due to political differences and posting of comments in social media disputes arose between the parties and on a perusal of record shows eight material witnesses have examined and also the vehicles and weapons used have been seized and entire investigation has been completed except for collection of medical reports and hence considering the circumstances and even the accused were attacked previously by A.Narender Rao and his accomplices, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/A­1 to A­8 are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August,

2018.

Sd/­

 II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

NALGONDA A SURYAPET. 

To The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Suryapet

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRTICT

JUDGE, NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT: SRI V.SREENIVAS SIVARAM

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

O.S.No. 18 of 2017

BETWEEN: Mantripragada Raja Ram S/o Laxmi Narsimha Rao, aged:49 years, Occ: Practicing Advocate, Nayanagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District

--PLAINTIFF.

A N D

Shaik Hazi Pasha @ Pasha S/o Thengella @ Babu, aged:37 years, Occ: Business, Chilkur village, Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District

--DEFENDANT.

This case is coming for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Seenapally Someshwar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The is a suit for recovery of money.

2. The brief facts of the case are that; the plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted with each other, due to such acquaintance, on his request, the plaintiff lent a sum of

Rs.13,00,000/- on 15.4.2014 to the defendant for his business expenses and the defendant after receiving the amount executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of R.Narsimha Rao and G.Pitchaiah, which pronote 2 was scribed by P.Venkat Narayana, agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 24% per annum and in spite of several demands the defendant did not choose to repay the amount.

On 16.09.2015 the defendant has filed Insolvency Petition vide

I.P.No.6/2016 against the plaintiff and some others , wherein an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is mentioned at S.No.26 of the schedule, and the plaintiff has filed counter in the said I.P and thereafter the Hon’ble Court on 30.11.2016 dismissed the

I.P for default. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant failed to appear before this Court in spite of notice in the Newspapers, as the summons could not be served in the normal course, hence he was set ex parte.

4. On behalf the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked.

5. Heard.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, as prayed for?

Point:

5. On this aspect PW-1 in his chief evidence affidavit stated the same facts mentioned in the plaint and Ex.A-1 pronote and Ex.A-2, which is the copy of Insolvency petition, shows that the plaintiff was the respondent at Sl.No. 26 and in the schedule and it was shown that the defendant borrowed

Rs.13,00,000/- and Ex.A-3 counter and Ex.A-4 is the order in the Insolvency Petition No.6/2015 which shows that on 30.11.2016 the I.P was dismissed for default and hence in view 3 of the oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff has proved that he has lent an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.04.2014 and that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

6. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.22,31,666/- (Rupees twenty two lakh thirty one thousand six hundred and sixty six only) along with costs together with subsequent interest at 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.13,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of August, 2018.

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

PW-1: Mantripragada Raja Ram --Plaintiff.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1: is the original promissory note dt.15.04.2014 Ex.A-2: is the certified copy of petition in I.P.No.6/2015 ExA-3: is the certified copy of counter in I.P.No.6/2015 ExA-4: is the certified copy of Order in IP No.6/2015 dt.30.11.2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

-Nil-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NALGONDA AT SURYAPET

4 5

PW-1 examined. Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked. Heard. Judgment pronounced (VSO) In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.22,31,666/- (Rupees twenty two lakh thirty one thousand six hundred and sixty six only) along with costs together with subsequent interest at 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.13,00,000/-.

II ADJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, NALGONDA AT SURYAPET.

DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY AUGUST, 2018

PRESENT: SRI V.SREENIVAS SIVARAM

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

Crl.M.P.No. 837 OF 2018

IN 

Crime No.71 OF 2018

(Of P.S. ChiLKUR)

BETWEEN:

1. Remidala Veeraswamy S/o Venkatramulu, aged:50 years, Occ: Coolie

2. Remidala Ashok S/o Veeraswamy, aged:23 years

Both are r/o Bethavolu village, Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District ­­PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & A­2

A N D

The State of Telangana, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor, Suryapet(through SHO., Chilkur) ­­RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. 

This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri V.Satyanarayana Pillah, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Grandhi Venkateshwarlu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, till this day this court made the following: 

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C to enlarge the petitioners/A­1 and A­2 on bail in Cr.No.71 of 2018 of P.S. Chilkur for the offence under Section 307 r/w.34 IPC on the ground that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in this case and that entire investigation has been completed except for filing of charge sheet.

Hence, the petition.

2.Notice given to Additional Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application.

3.Heard from both sides.

2

4. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the petitioners/A­1 and A­2 are entitled for bail?

POINT:­

5.On this aspect, according to the prosecution the brief facts of the prosecution case are that the defacto complainant and the accused are neighbours and there used to be some petty disputes between them.

While so keeping in view the previous disputes in mind on 27.7.2018 at 4.30 Hours when D.Satyanarayana was driving his cattle, A­1 to A­4 beat him with hands and sticks and took him to their house, tied him to an auto and have beat him with hands and sticks, wherein his right eye was also injured and the accused also threatened to kill him.

On perusal of the record entire investigation is completed as seven material witnesses were examined and through four panch witnesses weapons used in the offence were also recovered, and the confession of the accused were also recorded and medial certificate indicates that a simple injury has been caused to the right eye of the defecto complainant and considering that there were petty disputes between the parties and considering the fact that the they are in the jail for more than one month, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/A­1 and A­2 are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August,

2018.

Sd/­

 II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

NALGONDA A SURYAPET. 

3

To The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kodad