Telangana High Court
CRLP/8412/2019 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 DECEMBET TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN. :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI- CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8412 OF 2019- Betwce n: 1. Raikanti Ramesh. S/o. Venkataiah, - 2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, Petitioners/Accused
i|.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBETTWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN.
:PRESENT:THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI- CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8412 OF 2019- Betwce n:
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.268 of 2019-on the file of court of III Addl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar filed against the Judgment dated 28.11.2019 in CC. No.1 183 on,thefile ofthe court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class [(Excise) ]gt Karimnagar; Counscl for the Petitioners: SRI A.PRABHALA.R RAO [-]
Counscl for the RespondentADDI-. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Thc Court ntadc the follo*'ing;
I
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEV
,SRlMlNAL PETITION No. 8412 of 2019
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 :
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A2 and 43 andlearned Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for therespondent- State.
As seen from the record, the petitioners were tried forthe offence punishabte under Section 379 of l.P.C. inC.C.No.1'183 of 2019 and by its [judgment, ]dated 28.11.7019,the learned Special Judiciat Magistrate of First Class [(Excise),]Karimnagar, [,:onvicted ]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 defautt ofpayment of fine to undergo simpte imprisonment for a period ofsix months each. Being aggrieved by the said conviction andsentence, the petitioners/A2 and A3 have preferredCrt.A.No.268 of 2019, which came up before thr: lll AdditionalSessions Judge, Karimnagar. Atong with the appeat, thepetitioners/A2 and 43 have atso fited Crt.M.P.No.63 of 2019under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., seeking tcr suspend thesentence of imprisonment and atso sought for bail. The learnedlll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, vide order, dated11.12.2019, dismissed the said apptication statirrg therein that"the petitioners were atso imposed sentences ['in ];ix 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 bait" and accordingty dismissed thesaid apptication.
Learned Counse[ 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 entitled to bait pending disposalof the appeal as a matter of fact, but however, the learned lllAdditional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, instead of granting bai[to the petitioners, has rejected the apptication onty on theground that they were convicted in six other cases atso. Hefurther submits that the petitioners are in jaiI since 10.06.2019and they have atready been served six months of imprisonment.lf the petitioners are not reteased they witt suffelirreparabteLoss and injury.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are[anguishing in [jait ]for the [ast six months; they have beenconvicted for the offence under Section 379 of l.P.C. andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a [period ]of [two]years onty, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the q To
petitioners in C.C.No.1183 of 20'19 on the fite cf the SpecialJudiciat Magistrate of First Class [(Excise), ]Karimnagar, is herebysuspended, pr:nding disposal of Criminal Appeat No.268 of 2019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be released 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 tl^re satisfaction of the Speciat Judiciat Magistrate ofFirst Class (E>,cise), Karimnagar,Judiciat Magistrate of First Class [(Excise), ]Karimnagar, is herebysuspended, pr:nding disposal of Criminal Appeat No.268 of 2019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be released 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 tl^re satisfaction of the Speciat Judiciat Magistrate ofFirst Class (E>,cise), Karimnagar, According[y, the Criminat Petition is attowed SD/. [CH. ][VENKATESHWAR]ns!rsrattr [REGTSTRAR], irl //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICE
1The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
2The Special Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class, (Excise), at Karinrnagar.
3The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar District.
4The Station House Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar District.
5Two CCs to Pul:lic Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hy,lerabad (OUT)
6one CC to Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)7one Spare Copl7one Spare Copl HIGH COUR'IGSD,JDATE: 30-12-201!)
OIIDER
CRL.P. NO. 8412 0F 2019
BAIL
310Ecm