Shaik Munny v. The State Of Telengana

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.794 OF 2020 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioner/A-5, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.117 of 2019 of P.S. Maddirala, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-5, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

In the FIR, it is inter alia stated that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 04.11.2019 alleging that on 03.11.2019, when her husband reached near bus stand at about 8.45 pm, A-1 to A-13 have assembled unlawfully and A-5 sprinkled chilli-powder on her husband and his associates and all the accused beat them indiscriminately with talwars, as a result her husband and others have sustained bleeding injuries in head, hand and other parts of the body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-5 would submit that all the accused in the crime are arrested and released on bail and the entire investigation in the case is completed and recording the statements of the witnesses is also completed except filing of charge sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner's family members are inflicted in the case, especially her husband and father-in-law have been arrested and released on regular bail. It is further submitted that due to political

rivalry, the de facto complainant being the member of the ruling political party got inflicted this false case. It is further submitted that all the allegations leveled by the de facto complainant in her report are fictitious and concocted for the purpose of this false case and there is no iota of truth in the allegations. The petitioner, merely being the villager and having raised complaint on Ravulapally canal issue, has been dragged into this case. It is further submitted the petitioner is a lawabiding citizen and would be put to great hardship if anticipatory bail is not granted. The petitioner/A-5 is ready to furnish security and would be available for interrogation as and when required. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-5.

As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A-5, who sprinkled chilli powder on the complainant and her husband and his associates. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A-5. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioner/A-5 surrenders before the competent Court within a period of fifteen days from today and applies for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the said Court, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

_________________ (G. SRI DEVI, J) 11th February 2020 RRB