Telangana High Court
CRLP/8409/2019 of Raikanti Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2019
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TryDEITABAI) MONDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8,109 OF 2019 Between: I . Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah, 2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, Petitioners/Accused
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT TryDEITABAI)
MONDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN
:PRESENT:THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8,109 OF 2019
Between:I . Raikanti Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah,2. Mulkala Bhagath, S/o. Late Laxman, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 & 3
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana atHyderabad.Hyderabad.
RespondenVComplainant
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.269 of 2019 on the file ol court of III Addl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar filed against the Judgment dated 28.11.2019 in CC. No.1227 of2019 on the file ofthe court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar; Counsel for the Petition ersSRI:\.PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for the RespondentADDI,. PUBLI(] PROSECTITOR
Thc Court matle the follon'ing;
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVICRIMINAL PETITION No. 8409 of ?O1)
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 lerarned Counsel for the petitioners/A,2 and 43 andlearned Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for therespondent-State.
As seen from the record, the petitioners v/ere tried forthe offence punishabte under Section 379 of l.P.C. inC.C.No.1227 of 2019 and by its [judgment, ]dated 28.11.2019,the learned Specia[ Judic'iat Magistrate of First Class (Excise),Karimnagar, c,rnvicted 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 f lr a period ofsix months each. Being aggrieved by the said crrnviction andsentence, the petitioners/A2 and 43 have preferredCrt.A.No.269 of 2019, which came up before the lll AdditionatSessions Judge, Karimnagar. Atong with the appeat, thepetitioners/A2 and A3 have atso fited Crt.M.P.No.64 of 2019under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C., seeking to suspend thesentence of irrprisonment and atso sought for bait. The learnedlll AdditionaI Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, vide crder, dated11.12.2019, dismissed the said application stating therein that"the petitioners were atso imposed sentences in si x other cases and a[[ 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 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 entitted to baiI pending disposalof the appeal 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 a[so. Hefurther submits that the petitioners are in [jaiI ]since 10.06.2019and they have already been served six months of imprisonment.lf the petitioners are not released they witt suffer irreparabteloss and injury.
Having regard to the fact that the [petitioners]arelanguishing in [jait ]for the last six months; they have beenconvicted for the offence under Section 379 of l.P.C. [and]sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for [a ][period ]of [two]years onty, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the \
petitioners in C.C.No.1227 of 2019 on the fite cf the SpeciatJudiciat Magistrate of First Ctass [(Excise), ]Karimnagar, is herebysuspended, pending disposal of Criminal Appeat I'io.269 of 7019on the fite of the lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Kerrimnagar, andthe petitioners/A2 and A3 are directed to be re[eased on bailon their furrishing 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 Special Judicia. Magistrate ofFirst Ctass (Excise), Karimnagar.
Accordingty, the Criminat Petition is attowed.
/\r Ll
SD/- N. [P[.JRUSHOTHAM REDDY]ASSrS'rANr [REGTSTYR],TRUE COPY//
' [t)]
SEI]TION OFI;ICE
To,l. The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.2. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), at Kalimnagar.3. The Superinter, dent, District Jail, Karimnagar District.4. The Station House Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar District.5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hl,derabad (OUT)l. The III Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.2. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), at Kalimnagar.3. The Superinter, dent, District Jail, Karimnagar District.4. The Station House Officer, Manakondur Police Station, Karimnagar District.5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hl,derabad (OUT)
6. one CC to Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)
7. one Spare Cop1,
%*
HIGH COI.IRT
GSD,JDATE:30-12-20t9
ORDERCRI.P. NO.8409 ()F 2019
BAIL
'|.31 ilEl