K.Vijaya Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K.LAKSHMAN

Judgment date: 2020-11-27

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-11-27. K.Vijaya Kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[3168 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 5913,5917,5933 AND 5937 OF 2020 CRL. P. NO. 5913 0F 2020: Between: K. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. K. Satyanarayana, Petitioner/Accused No. \ AND The State of Telangana, represented by its S. H. O, Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy Dist. , rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana. Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr. P. C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending Investigation, Inquiry and Trial in connection with the Crime No. 4l5 of2020 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer ineparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner SMT. K. SESHA RAJYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL REP, SRI M.

KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR cRr. P. NO. 5917 0F 2020: Between: K. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. K. Satyanarayana, Petitioner/Accused No- I AND The State of Telangana, represented by its S. H. O, Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy Dist. , rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana. Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr. P. C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed therein, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail pending Investigation, Inquiry and Trial in connection with the Crime No. 349 of2020 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer ineparable Ioss. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT' K. SESHA RAJYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL REP. SRI M. KOTESWARA RAO \ Counsel for Respond,:nt PUBLIC PROSECUTO]( CRL. P. NO. 5933 0F:! 020: Between: Jasthi Pradeep Choudary. S/o. Nageswara Rao Petrtioner/Accused No.

2 AND The State ofTelangana, r'ep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofJudicature, at Hyderabad, for the State ofTelangana. Respondent Petition under Sc,:tions 437 & 439 of Cr. P. C, praying that in the citrumstances stated in the petition and the gr<runds filed therein, the High Court may be ple,rsed to release the petitioner/Al on bail irL Cr. No. 349 of 2020 on the file of Patanch:ru Police Station, Sangareddy, with any cor. dition or conditions; Counsel for the Petition cr SRI NARASIMHULU K. B. Counsel for Responden I PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRL. P. NO. 5937 0F 2020: Between: Jasthi Pradeep Choudary, lS/o. Nageswara Rao Petiti rner/Accused No. 2 AND The State ofTelangana. rqr. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofJudicature, at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana. Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr. P.

C, praying that in the circu nstances stated in the petition and the gror:nds filed therein, the High Court may be pleas:d to release the petitioner/A2 on bail in Cr. No. 415 of 2020 on the file of Patancher: Police Station, Sangareddy. with anl conchtion or conditions: Counsel for the Petitioner SRI NARASIMHULU K,B. Counsel for Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following; f*fi. -rg$ ) HONOUIIABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIlll\AL PETITIO\ \os. 5913. 5917. 5933 A\D 5937 OF 2020 COMMON ORDER: Mr. K. Vijaya Kumar, accused No. l in Crime Nos. 4l5 of 2020 and 349 of 2020 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddl, District, filed Criminal Petition Nos. 5913 and 59i7 of 2020 seeking regular bails in the said crimes. Similarly, Mr. Jasthi Pradeep Choudary, accused No. 2 in the said crimes, filed Criminal Petition Nos. 5933 and 5937 of 2020 seeking regular bails in the said crimes. The offences alleged against accused Nos. l and 2 in Crime No.

349 of 2020 are under Sections 120-8,420,441 and 427 read with 34 of IPC. The offences alleged against accused Nos. l and 2 in Crime No. 415 of 2020 are under Sections 120-8, 406 and 420 read rvith 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition Nos. 59l3 and 5917 ol 2020 is accused No. l, while the petitioner in Criminal Petition Nos. 5933 and 5937 of 2020 is accused No. 2 in the aforesaid crimes, and hereinafter they will be referred as accused Nos. l and 2 respectively. 3. Heard Mrs. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for accused No. I in both petitions (Crl. P. Nos. 5913 and 5917 of 2020), Mr. K. B. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for accused No. 2 in both petitions (Crl. P. Nos. 5933 and 5937 of 2020), Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned Cri. P Nos. 59I3 of 2 2020 & batch courls,:l for the de facto complainants, and also the leamed public Prosecutor a: appearing on behalfofthe respondent _ State.

ALL []rl l ATION SI NC ITI NI EN o. 3 19o f2020 . :l. The ailegations levelled against accused Nos. l and 2 in the conrplair:t by the de facto complainant - Sntt. ! 3n6igslla Vijaya Laxrri are that she has purchased the land to an ext,rnt of Acs. 22. 06 gunras in Survey Nos. 46 g, 469,4g,443,444, 463" 470, 473, 449,450, 451 and 452, situated at Chitkul village ol patarrcheru Mandal, Sangaredrly District, from Smt. K. Swamalatha and hcr sons, viz. , K. Vijay Ku;nar (Accused No. 1), K. Venkatesh and K. Subash Chandrab. se' vide registered sard deed bearing docurne rt Nos. 700g of 2003, 7Ol0 of 2003 and,70lI of 2003,and she conv(fted rhe same along with other extent into non_agriculture, laid piots and started selling on rh,: ,Sai name of Santoshi Township,. 5. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that on 27. 08. 2020 ar. 10. 00 a. m. , when she visited the site, she noticed rhat Mr. Pradeep Ohoudary (Accused No. 2), I4r. Konda Shivaraju, Mr. B. Yadaiah, Mr.. K.

Vrjaya Laxmi, Mr. Masthanaiah and N,lr. Sanjeev Reddy were :riminally trespassed into her land and rer noving the fencing stones oy saying that they were purchasers of the said land. 6. It iri also alleged by the de facto complainaLr that on verification of the documents, she came to know that Mrs. K. Swamalatha har; executed Gift Deed bearing document No. 30909 of ... a l tT KL. J J Crl. P. Nos. 59l3 0f2020 & barch r1iff<+rs*P 2018 in favour of her son - Mr. Venkatesh, to an extent of 4598 square yards tn Survey No. 438, another Gift Deed bearing document No. 46164 of 2018 in favour of her son - Mr. Vijay Kumar (accused No. l) to an extent of 27 83 square yards in Survey No. 463 and she also executed Agreement - curl - Ceneral Power of Attomey (AGPA) bearing document No. 54452 of 2019 in lavour of Mr. J. Pradeep Choudary (accused No. 2) to an extent of2420 square yards in Survey No. 452. Subsequently, her son - K. Venkatesh has executed AGPA bearing document No.

53578 of 2019 in favour of Mr. K. Venkata Seshu and accused No. 2 to an extent of 4598 square yards in Survey I I No. 43 8. Similarly, another son (accused No. 1) executed AGPA bearing document No. 40008 of 2019 in t-avour of accused No. 2 to an extent of2783 square yards in Survey No. 463. 7. It is further alleged that in view of the above, Smt. K. Swarnalatha and her sons by colluding u,ith accused No. 2 have executed documents in respect of the land which was already sold to hcr earlier, it is a double registration and, thereby they have cheated l-r e r. ALLEGATIONS IN CRIMtr No. 4l5 of 2020: 8. The allegations levelled against the petitioners - accused Nos. l and 2 in the complaint dated 03. 10. 2020 by de facto complainant - Suresh Ravi are that he was intending to purchase agricultural land, and Mr. Ratnana and Ratnakar introduced accused IFl=! =ii I I KL,J . l Crl. P. Nos 591 3 of 2020 & batch No. 2 to hirn. Taking advantage of his intention to putchase the land.

A"# accused Nos. 1 and 2 and others played fraud on irint. Accordingly, accused Nos. I and 2 and other accused in collusion with each other have sold the land to him in Survey No. 463 to an extent ol 2783 square yartl,; on 02. 01 . 2020 by receiving an amount of Ik. I . 50 Cores, but in lact the said land was already sold to Vijaya Lakshrni vide document I. 1o. 137 of 2020. After came to know the si'me, when he demanded ttre accused to retum the money, they did nlt retum, but offered somer other land and accordingly, agreed to allct the land in Survey No. 452 saying that it was a clear title and shown the report of Mandal Sur. ,gyor and conversion letter issued by the Tlhsildar, and received funler amount of Rs. 16. 00 lakhs in cash and Rs. 40. 00 lakhs by way ol cireques. Believing their version, he purchased the land under document bearing No. 3379 of 2020. Subsequently" he carne to know about :). re complaint lodged by the de complainant in facto Crime No. 349 of 2020. 9. lt is .

irrther alleged that on enquiry, the de complainant facto came to knorv that.. the said Surveyor's report and conversion letter rvere created in collusion with officials and sold the land in Suln,ey No. 448, whicl'r is a Govemment land, by showing it as tlLe land in Survey No. 452. Thus, accused Nos. l and 2 have cheated lhe defacto complainant. KL. J *ree:;;a 5 Crl. P. Nos. 59l3 of2020 & batch COMNION CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED No. l 10. Mrs. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned senior counsel, would subrnit tlrat lhe de complainants in both the crimes have made facto enquiries with the revenue officials in respect of nature of land. Even in the complaint dated 03. 10. 2020 in Crime No. 415 of 2020 itself, the de complainant has stated that he has made enquiries with the facto revenue officials with regard to the land. Accused No. 1 has never committed any cheating or criminal breach of trust as alleged by the de. facto complainants in both the complaints. 11.

The leamed senior counsel would further submit that the police have already taken custody of accused No. 1 on 23. 11 . 2020, and custodial interrogation ofaccused No. l was over. The police have not sought for any extension of custodial interrogation ol accused No. 1. The Investigating Officer has completed the entire investigation. The de complainants have falsely implicated accused No. I in the facto aloresaid crimes. Accused No. 1 has purchased the land ad measuring 2783 square yards in Survey No. 463 vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 46 I 64 of 20 I 8, dated 20. 1 1 . 201 8 from his vendor. Thereafter, he has executed AGPA vide document No. 40008 of 2019 in favour of accused No. 2 in respect of the very same land. The learned senior counsel would submit that the said land is not a Govemment land. She has also relied upon the receipts dated 21. 11. 2018, 26. 11. 2018, 25. 11. 2018, 20. 02. 2019 and 31. 05. 2019 issued by accused No. 1.

By referring to the said documents, the :r I KL. J KL,J 6 Crl. P. t{os. 5913 of2O2O & barch learned senior counsei would submit that the disputes are civil in "# nature. fhe accused No. I did not commit any oi. fence as alleged by the de fr;L:to complainants in both the crimes. The police have arested accused f,lo. I in both the crimes on 27. 10. 2020 and since then he is in jail. I 2. With the above said contentions, the leame( senior counsel sought to grant bail to accused No. l in both crime; by imposing certain cor rlitions. COMM or{ cONTE N TtoNSONB trHALF OF AC CUSED No. 2: 13. N4r. K. B. Narasimhulu, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of accused l(o. 2 would submit that accused No. 2 has not committed any offence iLs alleged in both the crimes. Ile would further submit that accused \Jo. I has executed AGpA in favour of accused No. 2 r. ide docurnent Nc. 4000g ol' 2019 by receiving sale considerurtion. Then. accused No.

2 has sold the said land to the de facto conplainant in Crime No. 4l5 of 2020. Thus, accused No. l has not comrlitted anv oflbnce. 14. He, would further submit that accused Nc. 2 never trespassed into a;ry land of the de facto complainant in Crime No. 349 of 2020 as ailegecl by her. The allegation mentioned in the c,rmplaint dated 29. 08. 2020 in Crime No. 349 of 2020 is civil in natr:re. Fle would also subrr ir that the police have arrested accused No. 2 in both KL,J ,1 Crl. P. Nos. 59l3 of2020 & batch 3*tbra. the crimes on 21 . 10. 2020 and since then he is in jail. The police have completed the entire investigation. 15. With the above said contentions, the learned counsel sought to consider bail applications of accused No. 2 in both crimes by irnposing cerlain conditions. COMMON SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOII: 16. On the other hand, the Ieamed Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that accused No. 1 has cheated the de facto complainant in Crime No.

4l5 of 2020 by showing the land in Survey No. 448 as if it is situated in Survey No. 452 of Chitkul village. The land in Survey No. 448 is Govemment land. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have sold the land to lhe de complainant which was already sold. facto Thus, there is double registration of the very same land. Accused Nos. i and 2 along with other accused in connivance with each other have cheated the cle complainants in both crirnes. facto 17. The leamed Public Prosecutor would further subrnit that there are several aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer including the aspect as to whether the subject land is irr Survey No. 448 or in Survey No. 452. The Investigating Officer has to collect documents frorn the Revenue Officials. Investigation is pending. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are influential persons and there is every Ilt KI-. J 8 Crl. P. Nos. 59 I i 0t 2020 & batch possibility of tarnpering the evidence and interfering rvith J5llrsrs lnvestlgatrorr 18.

Ihe learned Public Prosecutor, on instrut:tions, would submit that the Investigating Officer has not filed any application seeking cusrodial interrogation of accused No. 2 in both tlLe crimes. ri/ith 1 9. the said submissions, the leamed PublLc Prosecutor sought to dismiss the bail applications ofaccused Nos. I rnd 2 in both the crimes. CONSIDEI. (A'TION OF TH E COURT: 20. F',:nr the above submissions, the allegation aglinst accused t Nos. 1 and i in both the crimes is that they have soLd the land in Survey No. -1,18 showing that it is located in Sun'ey' No. 452 of Chitkul village. Thr:. y have received an amount of Rs. 1. 67 Crores through cash and an amount of Rs. 40. 00 lakhs through cheques. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 ;n collusion with other accused have sold t re saicl land illegally b1' executing the documents twice and it is double registration. Thus, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have comrnittod cheating. Accused Nos.

I and 2 have also trespassed into the land of the de /itcto complainant in Crime No. 349 of 2020. In the comp,laint dated 29. 08. 2020 irL Crime No. 349 of 2020, the de complainant has facto alleged that a:cused have trespassed into her land on 27. 08. 2020 and she came to klow about the criminal trespass on 27. 08. 2020. l'l. rere are no specilic dates, time on which accused Nos. l and 2 have l' KL,J 9 Crl. P. Nos. 59l3 of2020 & batch *,-f trespassed into her land etc. It is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 21. Whether the land sold to de complainant in facto Crime No. 4l 5 of 2020 is in Survey No. 448 or in Survey No. 452 is also a fact to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence including documentary evidence fiom the Revenue Officials, and have to exarnine tlrern. 22. Admittedly, accused Nos. l and 2 in both the crimes were amested on 27. 10.

2020 and since then they are in jail. The police have already taken custody of accused No. l on 23. 11. 2020 and they did not seek extension of his custody. Thus, the custodial interrogation of accused No. 1 was completed on 23. 11. 2020 itself. The leamed Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of four (04) witnesses. 23. Considerjng the above said aspects and also the aspect that the petitioners were arrested on 27. 10. 2020, the custodial interrogation of accused No. I was completed on 23. 1 1 . 2020 and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of four (04) witnesses, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in both the critnes. 't .. -. *-i. -*, KL. J I0 Crl. P. Nos. -59. 1 o12020 & batch 24. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are allcwed, and the qg; petitioners - irccused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime Nos.

349 of 2020 and 415 of 2020 shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) Ihe petitioners - Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime Nos. 349 tf 2020 and 415 of 2020 shall execute personal bonds for Rs. 25,0001 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each in roth crimes with two (02) sureties each in both crimes [or a like sum each to the satisf'action o1 the Judicial \4agistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Coufi, lSangareddy; 'they ii) shall repoft before the Investiga:ing Oftlcer r:veryday between 10. 00 A. M. and 5. 00 P. M. till r:ompletion of investigation and filing of chalge sheet; 'lhey iii) shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer by lumishing documents and also information a; required by the Investigating Olficer; and 'lhey i, ) shall not interfere with the investigatiorr. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the above crimir,al petitions shall stand closed. Sd/. K. VENKAIATI ASSIIiTAN?

//TRUE COPY/I ISiT 'l-1 SECTIO\ To OFFICER I The Judicial Fi-st Class Masistrare, Special Mobile. Sangareddv. M,:dal District. . 2 rhe Addt. rudi,: ar Firsr crui. v"eirii"i. l;;;;i;#i:1,]_ ,, ooo,. runior Civil Judge, Sangare,ldy, Medak District. 3, The SuperintenJent. Sub Jail. Kandi. Medak Disrrict. , 4. l ne supennten,lenr, District Jail, Sangareddy, / Medak Districr. 5. The Station House Officer, patanchen] pofi. e'Stuii*, S"rg". "OaV, tr{edak Districr. 6. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High C;;ii;l;;s; altyderabad 7. Two CCs ro Sri "' loUT) M. Koteswa. u Ruo]adro. ut"'(b;ijE;'- ' 8. Two CCs ro Sri l. tarasimhutu f. g.. eauoca;; iOi,U;1 9. One Spare Copl S.. o*"* tJn t tzrP HIGTI COURT KL,J DATE: 27-11-2020 ORDER CRIMINAL PETITIOI{ NOS: 5913,5917,5933 AND 5937 OF 2020 it c v BAIL /r, ! - I //t I t4 v- I c-c ut t- \ i; A \

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.