B. Sudhakar Rao v. The State Of Telangana
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
r I IN THI' HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G,SRI DEVI IA No.4 OF 2020 IN CRL. P NO: 2424 OF 2020 Between:
B. Sudhakar Rao, S/o B. Prabhakar Rao
...Petitioner
(Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 2424 of 2020 on the file of High Court) AND The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor at High Cou(, Hyderabad
...Respondent
(Respondent in-do-) Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition, the High Court may be pleased to relax the condition imposed on l6-06-2020 in Crinrinal Petition No. 2421 of 2020 and subsequent reliefs passed by the above Hon'ble Court in IA. No. 1 of 2020. dated 22-07 -2020 and IA. No. 2 of 2020, dated 07- 10-20201 Crl. P. n'O: 2124 OF 2020:
Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No. 378/2020, PS Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, for Offences u/s 406, 420 of IPC, in the event of his arest, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case, in the interest ofjustice; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition filed herein, and the orders of the High Court dated 16.06.2020 made in Crl.P. No. 2424 of 2020, dated 22-07 -2020, made in IA. No.l of 2020. dated 07 -10-2020 made in IA. No 2 of 2020, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. OIIDIiR:
"This petition is filed to relax the condition imposed on 16.06.2020 in Criminal Petition No.2421 of 2020 and subsequent reliefs passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020, diled22.07.2020 and I.A.No.2 of 2020 dated 07.10.2020. Heard both sides and perused the record.
A perusal of the record would show that by an order, dated 16.06.2020., this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, wherein the Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that due to lock dorvn period, the amounts rvhich have already been disbursed by thc petitioner, coultl not be collccted and the petitioner is ready to repay the balance amount to the de faclo complainant, if sometime is given to him. It rvould be apt to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the order, which reads thus:
2.
"The petitioner/accused shall rcpay the balance amount of Rs.27.00 lakhs to the defacto complainant in three monthly instalments i.e., Rs.9.00 lakhs each on 16.07.2020, 16.08.2020 and 18.09.2020 positively rvithout seeking any unnecessiry adjournments to repay the same. If the petitioner fails to deviate in payment of the said amount as directed, the libert"v granted to him shall lutomaticallv stand cancelled and he shall be takcn into custody forthwith," Thc record further discloses that the petitioner filed LA.No.1 of 2020 to extend reasonirblc timc of six months to repay the said amount. By an order, cl,ated 22,07.2020, this Court directed the petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.27,00 lakhs to the de fdcto complainant in three monthly instalments i.e., I1s.9.00 lakhs each on 16.08,2020, 18.09.2020 and 19.10.
2020 positively and it is also observed that no further extension of time will be grantcd, Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.3639-36.10 of 2020 before the Supreme Court of India. By an order, dated 14.08.2020, the Apex Court while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the said Special Leave Petitions grant€d liberty to him to approach the High Court for extension of time to pay the amount in terms of the impugned order, Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking extension of time to repay the amount of Rs.27.00 lakhs. By an order, dated 07.10.2020, this Court modified the order, rJated 16.06.2020, which was modified by order, dated 22.07.2020, as follows:- "The petitioner shall pay the balance amount of Rs,27.
00 lakhs to the de lacto complainant within one month from today. The petitioner is at liberty to pay the entire amount either in lump sum or by instalments, but he shall clear the cntire balance amount ryithin one month from todav. It is made clear that no further extension of time lvill be granted."
Without complf ing *ith the aforesaid condition, the petitioner again filed the present I.A. seeking relaxation of the same. Initilll)', the petitioner filed petitions seeking extension of time to pay the amount in instalments, but now, he seeks relaxation of the entire condition. Since this Court in the aforesaid orders made it clear that no further cxtension of time will be granted to pay the amount as directed and as the de faclo complainant also filed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner/accused on the ground that he failed to comply rvith the condition of payment of the aforesaid amount, I see no ground to relax the said condition. Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed,"
,), SD/-B. SATYAVATHI ASSiSTANT REGISTRAR '''f"--z t //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER o T l.
2.
The III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, S.R.Nagar PS., Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi, Advocate [OPUC] Trvo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabad (our) 3.
4.
One spare. Copy )
J HIGH COURT GSD..I DATE: l0-11-2021 L \
ORDER
P ,r "\ .s"s l+ aor zozo I.A. NO.
IN CRL.P. NO. 24210F 2020 ta )t ll c PETITION DISMISSEI)