Telangana High Court
CRLP/8408/2019 of Raikanti Ramesh and another Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2019
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8,108 OF 2019 Betrveen: 1. Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah, 2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, AND The State
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN
:PRESENT:THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8,108 OF 2019
Betrveen:
1. Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah,
2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman,
Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 & 3
AND
The State ofTelangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana atHyderabad.
Respondent/Complainant
Petition under Section 389 (2) of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in thepetition and the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners onbail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2019 on the file of court of III Addl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar filed against the Judgment dated 28.11.2019 in CC. No.ll87 of2019 on the file of the court of Special Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class (Excise) at Karimnagar; Counsel for the PetitionersSRI A.PRAI}HAKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent
.\l)l)l-. Pl [illl.l(I ]PITOS[('t TOIt
The Court ntade thc lblloling;
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
CIIIMINAL PETITION No. 8408 of 2019
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A2 and 43 andlearned Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor appear ng for therespondent-Stiite.
As seen from the record, the petitioners \/ere tried forthe offence punishable under Section 379 of l.P.C. inC.C.No.1187 <tf 2019 and by its [judgment, ]date,l 78.11.7019,the tearned Speciat Judiciat Magistrate of First Class [(Exc'ise),]Karimnagar, convicted the petitioners/A2 and A3 and sentencedthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twoyears each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default ofpayment of fine to undergo simpte imprisonment for a period ofsix months e;ach. Being aggrieved by the said conviction andsentence, the petitioners/A2 and A3 have preferredCrt.A.No.270 of 7019, which came up before the lll AdditionatSessions Judge, Karimnagar. Atong with the, appeat, thepetitioners/A2 and A3 have also fited Crt.M.P.'.1o.65 of 7019under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., seeking tc, suspend thesentence of imprisonment and atso sought for bait. The learnedlll Additionai Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, vide order, dated11.12.7019, Cismissed the said apptication stating therein that"the petitioners were also imposed sentences in six other cases and atI the sentences were ordered to run concurrentty.Therefore, in view of the fact that there are seven casesagainst the petitioners, in which they were convicted, theCourt is of the considered opinion that it is not proper toretease the petitioners on bail" and accordingty dismissed thesaid appticat'ion.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners woutd submit that thepetitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor two years and Section 389 (1)of Cr.P.C., envisages that ifthe sentence of imprisonment is made upto three years, theperson, who was convicted, is entitted to bait pending disposa[of the appeal as a matter of fact, but however, the learned lllAdditionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, instead of granting baiIto the petitioners, has rejected the application only on theground that they were convicted in six other cases also. Hefurther submits that the petitioners are in jaiI since ['1 ]0.06.20'1 9and they have already been served six months of imprisonment.lf the petitioners are not reteased they witt suffer irreparabteloss and injury.
Having regard to the fact that the petitionersareLanguishing in jait for the last six months; they have beenconvicted for the offence under Section 379 of l.P.C. andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twoyears onty, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
Conclusion
petitioners in C.C.No.1187 of 2019 on the fite of the SpecialJudiciat Magisl.rate of First Ctass [(Excise), ]Karimnar3ar, is herebysuspended, pending disposat of Criminal Appeat Nrr.270 of 7019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be ret(3ased on bailon their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-Judiciat Magisl.rate of First Ctass [(Excise), ]Karimnar3ar, is herebysuspended, pending disposat of Criminal Appeat Nrr.270 of 7019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be ret(3ased on bailon their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand onty) with two sureties each to the tikeamount, to the satisfaction of the Speciat Judiciat Magistrate ofFirst Ctass (Exr:ise), Karimnagar.amount, to the satisfaction of the Speciat Judiciat Magistrate ofFirst Ctass (Exr:ise), Karimnagar.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is attowed.
To,
l.A
SDi. N. F'URUSHOTH^AM REDDYASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR;. [.2 ]['v ]',ltlASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR;. [.2 ]['v ]',ltl //TRUE COPY//
SECT'ION OIIFICE
1The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
2The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), at Karinrnagar.
3The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar District.
4The Station House Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar District.
5Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Courl of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OU't)
6one CC to Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)7one Spare Copy HIGH COTIRT
GSD,JDATE: 30-12-20 l9
ORDER
CRL.P. NO. 8.108 o['2019
BAIL
Ir3 t DEC 8r3