Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC.
Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1.
The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration.
It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.
 However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the allegations and cancelled the bail in a posthaste manner.
 In the considered view of this Court, the lower Court ought to have directed concerned police to complete the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014 expeditiously and basing on the result of the investigation it ought to have passed an appropriate order regarding cancellation of bail. By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.
Therefore, to protect the personal liberty of accused on one hand and the right of fair investigation and fair trial to the complainant in Cr.No.435 of 2014 on the other, this Court passed the following order.
 1)      The impugned order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2014 is set aside and the accused are directed to be on bail.
2)      In Cr.No.705 of 2014, the concerned police are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file report within three(3) months from the date of this order. Till such time the accused are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Pahadishareef police station on every day and sign in the book opened by SHO for this purpose. The accused shall take the prior permission of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for non-compliance of aforesaid direction due to any valid reason.
3)      Depending on the result of the investigation in Cr.No.705 of 2014, the defacto complainant is at liberty to move the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancellation of bail of the accused, in which case, the said Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits.
 Accordingly this Criminal Petition is allowed.- 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Consumer affairs, food & civil supplies - Bifurcation of fair shop in between two villages - Their lordships held that by itself would not offer justification for the respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by paying transportation expenses to her.- Writ allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports