Telangana High Court
CRLP/8414/2019 of Raikanti Ramesh and Another Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2019
COURT FOR THI,I S'|ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDEI{ABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8414 OF 2019 Between: I . Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah, 2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, Petitioners/Accused
IN THE HI(;H COURT FOR THI,I S'|ATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDEI{ABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN
:PRESENT:THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8414 OF 2019
Between:I . Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah,2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 & 3
AND
The State ofTelangan4 rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State ofTelangana atHyderabad.
Respor.rdent/Cornplainant
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.267 of 2019 on the file of court of III Addl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar filed against the Judgment dated 28.11.2019 in CC. No.l186 of2019 on the file ofthe court ofSpecial Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class [(Excise) ]at Karimnagar; Counsel for the Petitioners SRI A.PITABHAKAII I{AO
Counsel for the Respondent
ADDL. PUBLIC PROSE,CUTOR
The Court made the follorving;
t
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVICRIMINAL PETITION No. 8414 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 A3 andlearned Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for [the]respondent-St ate.
As seen from the record, the petitioners were tried forthe offence punishable under Section 379 of l.P.C. inC.C.No.'1186 cf 2019 and by its [judgment, ]dated 28.11.2019,the learned S,peciat Judicial Magistrate of First [t-tass ][(Excise),]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 firre to undergo simple imprisonment 1or a period ofsix months each. Being aggrieved by the said conviction andsentence, the petitioners/A2 and 43 have preferredCrt.A.No.267 of 2019, which came up before the lll AdditionatSessions Judge, Karimnagar. Atong with the appea[, thepetitioners/Ail and A3 have atso fited Crt.M.P.No.62 of 2019under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., seeking to suspend thesentence of imprisonment and atso sought for bait. The learnedlll AdditionaI Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, vide order, dated11.12.2019, dismissed the said apptication statinq therein that"the petitioners were atso imposed sentences in six other cases and att 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 torelease the petitioners on bait" and accordingty dismissed thesaid apptication.
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 disposalof the appeaI as a matter of fact, but however, the learned lllAdditionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, instead of granting baiIto 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 10.06.20'19and they have atready been served six months of imprisonment.lf the petitioners are not reteased they witt suffer irreparableloss and injury.
Having regard to the fact that the petitionersaretanguishingtn 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 only, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the )
petitioners in C.C.No.1'l 86 of 2019 on the fite ol the SpeciaLJudiciat Magistrate of First Ctass [(Excise), ]Karimnagar, is herebysuspended, per-rding disposaI of Crim'inaI Appeat Nc,.267 of 2019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be reteased on bailon their furni:;hing personal bond to the tune o1 Rs.'1 0,000/-(Rupees ten thousand onty) with two sureties each to the tikeamount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judiciat Magistrate ofFirst Ctass (Excise), Karimnagar.
Accordingty, the Criminal Petition is at[owed.
't'o
'l
4ifd
SD/- N. i:'URUSHOTHAM REDDYASSIST [O.NT ]REGISR
i/TRUE C()PY/i
t"SECTION OFFICE
The III Addl. Scssior.rs Judge, Karimnagar.
The Special Juclicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise). at Kari 'rnugar.
The Superinten,Sent. District Jail, Karinnagar District.
The Station Ho.rse Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimrr;rgal I)istrict.
Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofTelangana. at HvJerabad (OUT)
one CC to Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)
one Spare Copl'
HICH COTIRT
GSD,JDATE: [30-12-201!t]
ORDERCRL.P. [NO. ][8414 ][OF ][2019]
BAIL
III0ttm
A