Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Gonuguntla Poorna Chandra Rao vs The State Sho

High Court Of Telangana|28 April, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE: K. G. SHANKAR CRL.P. No. 4382 of 2014 Between:
Gonuguntla Poorna Chandra Rao S/o Venkateswarlu Petitioner/Accused (in Cr. No.132 of 2014 on the file of Guntur Taluk P.S., Guntur District. ) AND The State SHO, Guntur Taluk Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Respondent/Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : The Additional Public Prosecutor Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No. 132 of 2014 of Guntur Taluk Police Station in the event of his arrest by the respondent police.
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER “The petitioner seeks for grant of anticipatory bail. He allegedly committed offences under Sections 307, 420 and 506 IPC.
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the de facto complainant and received Rs.4,30,000/- and later refused to register the land in favour of the de facto complainant and also refused to pay money to the de facto complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the offence is purely a civil dispute.
It may be noted that it is alleged by the de facto complainant that the petitioner tried to attack the de facto complainant with a crowbar. It is certainly an offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the genesis of the dispute is a contract between the petitioner on the one side and the de facto complainant on the other side. I, therefore, consider that it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall surrender before the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, shall enlarge the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each in a likesum to his satisfaction.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.
2. The Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur.
3. The Station House Officer, Guntur Taluk Police Station, Guntur District.
4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT)
5. One CC to Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, Advocate (OPUC)
6. One Spare copy BV HIGH COURT DR. KGS.J DATED: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.4382 OF 2014 BAIL DRAFTED: BY BV DATED : 29-04-2014 HIGH COURT DR. KGS.J DATED: 28-04-2014 ANTICIPATORY BAIL CRL.P.NO.4382 OF 2014 BAIL
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gonuguntla Poorna Chandra Rao vs The State Sho

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
28 April, 2014
Advocates
  • Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao