Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vasamsetti Dinesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 January, 2024
iN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA TUESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR -PRESENT: SONS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAG CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 382 OF 2024 Between: Vasamsetti Dinesh, Sfo Appa Rao, aged 23 Years, RYo Chintalurs Wi Hage, Prathinadu Mancal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh Petiioner/Accused-4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rapresented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu Guntur Distriet Anchra Pradesh. (SHO PS Prathipadu, Kakinada District) | Respondent'Comaplainant Pebtior: under Sectlans 437 and 4239 of C CrPC, praying that in the clrournstances Slated in the memorandurn of grounds fled in support of the Criminal Petition, the Hoh Court may be nlegsed fo en} arge the petitioner on ball in n Grime No 245 of 2089 Dated 19-07-2022 on the Wile of the SHO PS Prathinadu PS , Kakinada Distric The petition coming an far hearing, UPON perusing the Petition and the memnora: ndum OF grounds filed in Support thereof and upon hearin ing the arguments of Sr ¥ SAI KUMAR Advocate far the Pattioner and < of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the fot iOwing ORDER
DEGRA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARIUNA RAG CRIMINAL PETITION No. 352 of 2034 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of CrP, has been filed by the petitioner/A4 seeking regular bail In Cr. No. 2490/2022 of Prathipadu police station, Kakinada Dystrict,
2. The above said crime was registered against the petitioner/Ad and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307. ay?, Ag? 148, 147 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), ee 64
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
The complainant is a resident of Chinthaluru Vilage in Prathigads Mandal and thet the management of Satya Shanti Sankshema Seva Samitht obtained all orders from the Government authority for Laterite mining situate in R.S.No.t of Chinthaluru Villeqe and the camplainant WSS appol inted as watchman Dy mining oresident and another four persons were also appointed to help the complainant. Al provoked other workers to demand the mining authority for more compensation thereby leading the nearby farmers in wrong track and provoking thern nat Lo cooperate with mining works, not to take compensation and then he wil give threat to the mining management. Al was campaigning in the vilage proclaiming that, he wil give more compensation fram the mining management, otherwise he will obstruct the mining works and Ht mo.
fire to all the articles of mini ing and wil drive them out of the village, On 177.2029 Morning at about 10.00am, Al crimin nally trespassed into the mining ara, threatened the complainant and o r workers. On 19.7, 2032 ae about 3.00pm, when the complainant along with other co-
WOrKErs were BTESent at the working site. in the meantime At alond with A2 to Ag ere armed with deadly WEADONS URS knives, iron roe and Sticks, criminally trespassed into the laterite mining site, Al abused the "complainant with unlawful words and after that Ad forcib Hy Racked over the neck of the Complainant with an intention to kil him with & knife and he tactfully escaped from the sey vere blow anc sustained by eeaing injury Over AIS neck Al to AB and others pelted knives and stick aver the workers ane attempted to camm i murder, 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner centended that the petitioner WAS arrested on 22.12.2033 and since then he has been in judicial CUSLOdY. He ig s Student and he is suffering from Mid perilesional edema In brain and if he continues to be in judicial custody, his health will Be spoiled, ag such Preys to enlarge the petitioner on bail. To SUDDOFE his Contention, he has fled madical record of the petitioner,
5. On the othey hand, learned Assi istant Publle Prosecutor submi teed that after COMDletion of invest igation, charge shast is Hed. Learned Se SE Ta, ACD UD Be Od Bb oe Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner has no previous antecedents, &.
?
Heard both sides.
Now, the saint for consideration is:
fin ws BA a a oe ee y vend ~ - . 7 jf Whether the petifionavdd can &e released on grant af ban?
POINT:
&.
we Perused the entire material an record, Considering the submissions that after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed and the getitioner is suffering from mild periesional edema in brain and to that effect medical record is fled and further detention of the petitioner in jail is not required as charge sheet is fled. Hance this Court views that itis 9 fi case to grant bad to Fy
0. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the f& lowing i, The petitioner herein shall be released! on ball on her execuling & personal bond for Rs.25, OO0/- (Rupees owe amity five thousand only with two (02) sureties for a lke sum 1 Bach to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathinadu: i. that the petitioner is directed) not to harnper the investigatio on and tamper with the prosecutian witne Sdi- K we RAIA BABU P ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR a PRUE COPY! For SECTION OFFICER The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu., The VH Additional District JudgaiF TO) ve Hapuram ns Superinfiendent, Prathinadu Sub-Ja H Kak nada O Net iat, The SHOPS Prathinady, Kakinada. -" - One OC fo SRE V SALKUMANR Advocate fOPUC) Two (05 to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of APROUT] Snes Spare copy.
Apendogecare ce HIGH COURT TRE, DATED 202024 SAIL ORDER CRLP.No.382 of 2024 ALLCAVED