Thakur Rajender Singh , Tagore v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1873 OF 2021 Between:

Thakur Rajender Singh @ Tagore, S/o.Thakur Madan Singh, Aged 5.p Occ.Project Manager, Raghuram lnfra Private Limited, Rl/o.Flat No.4A, 4'" Jain Sadguru Heights, Manjeera Pipeline Road, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. years, Floor, ...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO. 5 AND The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S, Narsingi, Cyberabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.106/2021 pending on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Hari Preeth, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1873 OF 2O2l ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.S for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 106 of 2O2l of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 9 (B), 1 (b) of Explosive Act and Sections 4 and 5 ofthe Explosives Substance Act'

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No'5 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State. Perused the material on record 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.S would submit that the allegations in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and the Remand Report clearly show that the original Contractor C.Ramulu violated the terms of the contract and he seems to have entrusted the contract works to accused No. 1, who is son of said Ramulu; that the present case has been foisted against the petitioner without any material on record; that the entire allegations in the Remand Report along with confession-cum-seizure panchanama does not disclose any specific overt act against the present petitioner; that the police have implicated the petitioner in the present crime solely on the basis of confessional statement alleged to have been made by accused Nos. 1 and 2; that the petitioner is a private employee and he is ready to abide by any condition. He also submitted that all other accused have been arrested and enlarged on bail and ultimately, prayed this Court to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail aPPlicatton.

5.

As per the Remand Report, there is specific allegation against the present petitioner that he being Project Manager/Traffic Manager instructed a1l other accused to commence the blasting works at the premises v\2., Raghuram lnfra, without obtaining any valid permission from the authorities concerned, Iifteen (15) days prior to lodging the First Information Report, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

6.

Thus, looking into nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/ accused No.S, and also the fact that he has instructed the other accused to commence the blasting work much before obtaining valid permission, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner/ accused No'5 surrenders before the Court concerned within fifteen (15) days from today and liles an application for grant of regular bail, after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor, the same shall be considered, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law' 7 .

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed SD/.M.MANJU ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad at Rajendranagar' 1.

Tf,:KI8t"''lii35'3h'."', Narsingi Porice station' cvberabad' 2.

?'?/:g3e",t'rl;ix'3lor"""o'' High court forthe state of relangana at 3.

B*"tt?S J'?t-'*"' Preeth' Advocate loPucl 4.

5.

Two CD CoPies gbt -., lr'

HIGH COURT DATED:1610312020 .r rJ \I TATA S :

19l4AB 2021 oo .-) .A + * D,Ts PA:T

ORDER

CRLP.No.1873 of 2021 DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION.

e1 -0{