Telangana High Court
CRLP/12838/2015 of Mohd Abdul Sayeed Vs THE STATE OF A.P. on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12838 OF 2015 ORDER: This criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner/ A .6 seeking bail in S.C.No.475 of 2011 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
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.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOCRIMINAL PETITION No.12838 OF 2015
ORDER:
This criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner/A.6 seeking bail in S.C.No.475 of2011 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabadfor the offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 122, 123, 124-A, 153-A r/w 34IPC and Sections 16, 18 & 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.
Heard and perused the records.
The case of the prosecution is that in retaliation to the killings ofNamazees in police firing after bomb blast in Mecca Masjid occurred on18.5.2007, one Vikar Ahmed @ Ali Khan (A.1) formed a terror organizationcalled “Tehreek Galba-e-Islam”, procured weapons accompanied by A.2,opened one round of fire and A.2 opened three round of fire with pistol on apolice constable by name U.Ramesh, who was on police picket duty atVoulga junction, Himmatpura, Shalibanda, Hyderabad at 5.30 p.m. on14.5.2010 and caused instantaneous death.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is injudicial custody from 14.7.2010 and that he is the only bread earner of theentire family.
The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by thisCourt on 6.10.2015 in Crl.P.No.9121 of 2015 with the following observations:
“Taking into consideration the present stage of the case, this Court is of theview that grant of bail at this stage would certainly cause prejudice to furtherproceedings before the trial Court. But in any event, taking into consideration thesubmissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial Court is directed toconclude the trial within a period of one month. If the defence counsel fails tocooperate for cross-examination of the witnesses concerned, it is left open to thetrial Court to proceed further. If the trial Court fails to conclude the trial within onemonth, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before this Court.”
The only grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that in theearlier occasion, though this Court by order dated 6.10.2015 inCrl.P.No.9121 of 2015 directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of two months, till date, the trial is not concluded.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the propertyinvolved in the present case is also concerned with S.C.No.157 of 2008 andat present, the trial in the said S.C. is concluded and the matter is posted forexamination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted thatthere is no intentional delay on the part of the prosecution and since theproperty concerned in the present crime is also marked in S.C.No.157 of2008, there was delay and that the said property is now transferred to the trialCourt for trial in the present case and the trial would be completed within twomonths.
Considering the above, this Court is of the view that some more timeshould be given to the trial Court to conclude the trial. Hence, this Court isnot inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.
30.12.2015Tsr
_____________________
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO