Shaik Masthan Bee v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: G SRI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-01-28. Shaik Masthan Bee v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
31s8 [ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF ]ANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 400 OF 2020 Between: 1, Shaik Masthan Bee, W/o. Madar, 2. Shaik Rameej, S/o. Madar, Petitioners/Accused No. 2&3. AND The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad. Respondent/Com plaina nt Petition under Section 438 of Cr. P. C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Crimlnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners / Accused No. 2 and 3 on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 344 of 2019 on the file of the Sathupally Police Station, Khammam District.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petitlon and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following. ORDER; THE: TIONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI tlEvl CFIItVINAL PETITION No. 400 of 2OZ) ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 cf the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitic,ners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 seeking to grant anticipatory bail ir the event of their arrest in Crime No. 344 of 2019 on the file of Sathupally Police Statiorr, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 307 read wi:h Section 34 IPC. 2. Heard lerarned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State and perused the record. 3.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that accus,-. d Nos. l to 5 made him believe that exchange of fake currency is correct way to earn easy money within short period and offe'ed to give 5 times of fake currency for original currency and when the de facto complainant expressed to give Rs. 2 lakhs, accused No. 1 advised him to come near Culvert on Kothuru and Rejerla Ghat road of Sathupalli Mandal with amount and that on 26. '1 0. 2019 at 7 hours at the above place, after taking Rs. 2 lakhs from him, accused No. 1 d d not give fake currency and on the de facto complainant's raising voice, accused Nos. 1, 3 arrd 5 pushed him and attacke,l with knives with an intention to kill him and that he took heels due to fear and the accused fled away in two t-cl I s 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the above case; that petitioner No. 1-accused No.
2, who is the wife of accused No. 1, is a house wife and a pardanashin lady and petitioner No. 2-accused No. 3 is the son of accused No. 1 and they are no way concerned with the alleged offences, that accused Nos. 1, 4 to 7 were arrested and were already released on bail; and that even as per the complaint, the accused tried to give fake currency, but only children playing currency was alleged to have been seized. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the event of their enlargement on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor though opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners conceded to the fact that no injury whatsoever has been found on the body of the de facto complainant and the presence of petitioner No. 1 was not shown in the F. l. R. 6.
Thus, looking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Khammam Police Station, Khammam District, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. On such surrender, the said Station House Officer sharll release the petitioners on cail on each of them executing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,0001 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like amount each to his satisfaction Further, the ce,titioners shall abide by the condit ons stipulated in Section 438(,2) Cr. P. C and co-operate with th,: lnvestigating Officer in investigating the case. 8. [\4iscellaneous applications, if any pending n this criminal petition, shall stand closed. i REDDY SHOTH SD/. N.
PURIJ RAR GI ASSISTANl -"'1S COPY / / / lTRUE SECTIO OFFICER To, at Sathupelly' First Class Magistrate 1 . The ludicial Police Station' Officer, Sathupally 2 . fne Station House Khammam District. REDD\ AdVOCAIE P VISHNUVARDHANA 3. ONC CC tO SRi. loPUCl 4. TwoCCstoPUBLICPRoSECUToR,HighCoUrtatHyderabad. Iour] 5. One SPare CoPY GR __-- ,l HIGH COURT GSDJ DATED:28/Ot/ ,! o -. to)-b ORDER CRLP. No. 4OO of 2O2O BAIL ,\ 1'tlE S gGIAL v,(. o o 3 0 Jtil 2u0 p . * o i-spATca
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.