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.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

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)