Mohammed Lateef v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.LAKSHMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-09-24. Mohammed Lateef v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4171 OF 2020 Between: Mohammed Lateef, S/o. Mohammed Mehmood, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. 9-10-26/3/1 , Attara Sidhi, Qutub Shah Masjid, Golconda, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Hvderabad ... RES'. NDENT/.. M,LA,NANT Petition under Section 438 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused-1 in the event of his arrest in connection with Cr. No. 8 of 2020 on the file of P. S. , Narsingi Cyberabad, R. R. District.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s Naseem Ara, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IIOTNOURABLE SRI JUSTICI. - K. LAKSIJ llAN ('ltllllN. \t. PEI'II'ION No. 4l7l OIr ::02(| oRt)ER. This is an application fbr anticipatory bail ir t-'rime No. 8 of 2020 penrling on the llle of the Station House Otllcer, )! r rsingi l)olice Station. Cyberabad. The petitioner herein is accused No I in the said Crime No. 8 c. tf 2020. The offences alleged against thc petitioner are under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 1208 of the lncl ar Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 82 and 83 ofthe Registration Act 2. t{eartl learned counsel lbr the petitioner - acc Lsed No. 1 and learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor for the responrlirnt State Perused the reco rd. l.
T he lcrrrnecl counsel fbr the petitioner woulrl s rt rnit that the pctitioner"s n. :nri is not there in the complaint. []! en tlre r the police have included the petitioner as accused No. l. E. r'er as per the investigation, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have voluntarily crrnf'essed to have committed the otfences alleged. The petiticn,:r is only a mediator between accused Nos. 2 and 3. The petition(:r is nothing to do with the oil-ences alleged against him. Learned c,o -rr sel lor the petitioner seel s to consider the anticipatory bail irpplication by irnposing some conditions . , 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the olTences alleged against the petitioncr herein are serious in nature and there is every possibiIit1, oI'thc pctitionel interl-ering u ith thc inlestigation 5. A perusal ol thc remand report would reveal that accused No. l hatched a plan to grab the property in Plot No. B-147 in Survey Nos.
9(r/2 and 3 admeasuring 300 square yards situatcd at Bandlaguda . lagir, Hyderabad. Accused No. l has acquaintauce with accused No. 6. Accused Nos. I and 4 are friends. Accused No. l disclosed his plan and intention for grabbing the plot and asked accused No. 4 to bring someone with the same age of original owner Late Jagan Singh, tbr which, accused No. 4 agreed. He disclosed the plan to accused No. 5 Mallesh rvho got acquaintance with him at vegetable market. Accused No. 5 also agreed and brought accused No. 2 for irnpersonating the original owner. Later, accused No. l along with accused Nos. 4 and 5 brought accused No. 2 to a Mee-Seva Center and created lake Aadhar Card on the name ol the original owner late . lagan Singh. For doing this, accr. rsed No. l garc Rs. 50. 000,- to accused No. 5 ancl Rs.. 10. 000,-to accused No. 2. Thus, there are specillc allegations against the petitionel herein.
In view of the same and also the nature of of'fence conimitted by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him 6. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. -l ,\s a seclLrci thcreto, nriscellaneous petitiolts. i1 ,rrv. 1;ending in the criminal pcti:ion stancl closecl. SD/-N. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO ASSIISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \, SECTIOM'OFFICER To 1. The XVI Additional lVletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar 2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad District 3. One CC to Sri Nlaseem Ara ,Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Terlangana Hyderabad (ouT) A Two CD Copies Ks V' HIGH COUR-T KLJ DATED:2411:,15t12020 1 H s . e k o L) 03 Ocr 2020 rl -(- ORDER { * D 6. 9c;i6tr€o CRLP. No. 4171 of 2020 DISMISSING T'HE CRL. P ',tif,D t 03 t
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.