← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/11408/2017dismissed

Routhula Srinivas , R.S. v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2017-11-28Shameem Akther2 pages

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.11408 OF 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused for the offences alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the record. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would submit that the petitioner-accused is innocent person. Except confession made by A1 in this case, there is no mention in the confession report of the other accused that the petitioner-accused caused the subject death of the Parisa Srinivasu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') along with other accused. The allegations are false and ultimately, prayed to allow the petition.

4.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to the petitioneraccused. 5.

The material placed on record reveals that A1 and the deceased are close relatives. With the help of A1, the deceased secured employment to different persons and made huge money and did not give the required share to A1. Therefore, A1 bore grudge against the deceased and ultimately, the deceased was eliminated along with the petitioner and other accused in this case.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would submit that A2 to A4 were granted regular bail by the Sessions Court.

7.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the confessional statement of the other accused, they have clearly and categorically stated the specific role played by the petitioner-accused in causing the death of the deceased. After causing the death of the deceased, the dead body of the deceased was thrown in Godavari River. The allegations are grave. The punishment for the offence alleged is imprisonment for life or death. The release of the petitioner-accused would hinder investigation. Therefore, it is not at all a fit case to allow the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J DATED: 28-11-2017 Hsd