Telangana High Court
CRLP/13032/2015 of DHARAM VEER AND ANR. Vs STATE OF A.P. on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13032 & 12263 OF 2015 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same crime and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Crl.P.No.13032 of 2015 is filed by A .8 & A .11 and
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 ELANGO
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13032 & 12263 OF 2015
COMMON ORDER:
These two Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same crime andtherefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this commonorder.
Crl.P.No.13032 of 2015 is filed by A.8 & A.11 and Crl.P.No.12263 of2015 is filed by A.17 under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure seeking bail in crime No.192 of 2014 on the file of UnguturuPolice Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences under Sections120B, 148, 201, 202, 302, 212 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of IndianArms Act.
This is a case of triple murder. According to the prosecution, A.1, A.2along with A.7 hatched a plan to kill the deceased, that the petitionersherein being the hired assassins came from Delhi to execute the plan ofmurder of deceased (father and two sons), that on 24.9.2014, while thedeceased were proceeding on the National Highway No.5 in a car, at about10.10 a.m., the petitioners and others chased them in XUV car, forced themto stop their car near Vega Tataiah Gardens on the highway and they shotall the three deceased at point blank range.
Learned counsel for the petitioners herein submits that the petitionershave never participated in the murder as alleged and that they werearrested on 10.10.2014 and since then they are in jail. He contends thatmany of the accused including the material accused were enlarged on bailand since the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, thepetitioners may be enlarged on bail.
Opposing the bail petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorcontends that the petitioners are some of the hired assassins from Delhi and against them number of cases are pending at Delhi. Though some of theaccused in this case were granted bail, the case of the petitioners stands ondifferent footing.
Heard and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitionerswere not present at the scene of occurrence on the alleged date ofoccurrence. Even though the petitioners were not present at the time ofoccurrence, it is the case of the prosecution that earlier similar attempt wasmade by the petitioners which ended in unsuccessful and an offence underSection 120-B is also registered against the petitioners. The said earlierunsuccessful attempt is also covered by this crime since it is a continuousattempt by the petitioners against the deceased. Further the petitioners areinvolved in some previous cases. Even though it is submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were alreadyacquitted of the earlier offences, this Court is of the view that theinvolvement in earlier crimes shall also be taken into consideration at thetime of grant of bail. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that atthis stage, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
30.12.2015Tsr
_____________________
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO