Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

Posted on March 8, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court passed this reportable judgment regarding whether a co-accused be a surety to accused in a criminal case.

From Paras 21-26,

21. As discussed supra, the prime object of the surety is to secure the presence of an accused for the purpose of concluding investigation and the trial after filing charge-sheet. A surety should be a fit person. Who is a fit person is not defined or explained anywhere in the Code. Generally, the surety must be a genuine person. He should not be a bogus person. Sureties come to the Court and give undertakings to the Court that he will ensure the presence of accused. If the accused fails to appear before the Court, surety bond executed by the surety will be forfeited. Thus, the Station House Officer has to ascertain the genuineness of surety. It is also relevant to note that there is no prohibition in the Code that the co-accused cannot stand as surety to any accused. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution has not filed any document to show that the mother of the accused is added as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 913 of 2020. Therefore, the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station is not justified in refusing to accept the surety of the mother of the accused. The mother of the accused whether she is co-accused or not can stand as a surety.
22. The apprehension of the prosecution is that both the petitioner and her mother are from Lucknow and there is every possibility of accused jumping on bail in which event the Investigating Officer will not be in a position to ensure the presence of the accused in concluding the investigation.
23. In view of the said apprehension, it is relevant to point out that there is provision in the Code to arrest the surety in the event of accused fails to appear before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court for concluding investigation or trial respectively. There is no provision in the Code to take any other step/action against surety except forfeiting the surety amount, and initiating the procedure laid down under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code which is lengthy procedure.
24. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the object surety is to ensure the presence of accused for the purpose of completion of investigation and concluding of trial in case of filing of charge-sheet. The surety should be a fit person and a genuine person. He/She should not be a bogus person. The Court or the Station House Officer has to ascertain and take an undertaking from the surety that he/she will ensure the appearance of the accused for the purpose of completing the investigation and concluding the trial in case of filing charge-sheet. The Station House Officer should be satisfied the genuineness and identity of the surety including residential address of surety. The Station House Officer cannot reject or refuse to accept surety offered by mother of the accused, whether she is a co-accused or otherwise.
25. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed copies of fixed deposit receipts obtained in the name of the mother of the petitioner, local surety and also filed copies of death certificate of his grandfather, flight tickets etc. After completion of funeral rites of his grandfather, he has reached the Hyderabad to offer sureties. But, the Station House Officer has refused to receive the same. In view of the above discussion, the Station House Officer, Madhapur, cannot refuse to accept the surety offered by the mother of the petitioner whether she is a co-accused or otherwise.
26. In view of the above discussion and also the authoritative principles of law, the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, is directed to accept the surety of mother of the petitioner-accused in compliance of the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by this Court in Crl. P No. 5782 of 2020. The time granted for surrender of the petitioner in the said order is extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

Citations: [2021 ALT CRI 1 230], [2021 ALD CRI 1 491], [2021 SCC ONLINE TS 1931]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60af56e34653d00e3c27c6e2

Earlier Anticipatory Bail Order:

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 19 Nov 2020

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Posted on February 28, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Posted on February 4, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on landmark judgment here and here, Single judge bench of Gujarat High Court condoned the delay of 3330 days, considering the lapse was on the part of the advocate who did not file the Written Statement in the prescribed time.

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Khushbu Devi @ Kumari Khushbu Vs Shekhar Kumar Swarnkar on 02 Nov 2022

Posted on January 17, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Jharkhand High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

Ms. Ayushri, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the ex-parte judgment by the Family Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no material before the Family Court to hold that summons was duly served upon the appellant on 21st May 2018.

From Para 8, 9 and 10,

8. The aforesaid mode of services of summons under Rule 9 shall have different requirements upon fulfillment of which the Court may infer or hold that summons was validly served upon the defendant. A valid service of summons upon the defendant is the most important step during 1st stage of any trial and the reason is obvious. It is a fundamental requirement in law that no one should be condemned unheard and therefore no trial of either nature, civil or criminal, can proceed without notice to the other side. For more than one reason, a tracking record cannot be the conclusive proof of valid service of summons upon the defendant. In the first place, a tracking record is required to be placed by the Registry before the Court and it must form a part of the records of the case. Secondly, a tracking record must be supported by an affidavit of Nazir or any other officer of the Court authorised in this behalf. In certain cases, the plaintiff may also lead evidence regarding service of summons with the help of the tracking record. There are other requirements under Rule 9 which have also to be considered by the Court concerned before service of summons upon the defendant is
held valid.
9. Sub-rule (5) provides that there should be an acknowledgment or any other receipt signed by the defendant or his agent, or, where the postal article containing the summons has been received back by the Court the same shall contain an endorsement by a postal employee or by any person authorised by the courier service to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article or had refused to accept the summons by any other means specified in sub-rule (3) when tendered or transmitted to him. In case where summons has been returned unserved or has been refused by the defendant, under Rule 19 the serving officer shall be examined by the Court.
10. The proviso to sub-rule (5) provides that the Court may declare that summons has been validly served upon the defendant notwithstanding the acknowledgment having been lost or mislaid or for any other reason if the same has not been received by the Court within thirty days from the date of issue of summons, provided the summons was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due. The acknowledgment or postal receipt is required to be brought on record for another reason also. Under Rule 15 service of summons upon any adult member of the defendant’s family is considered valid service upon the defendant. However, explanation to Rule 15 provides that a servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this Rule and therefore the Court before holding valid service of summons upon the defendant is required to see to whom the summons was served.

Khushbu Devi @ Kumari Khushbu Vs Shekhar Kumar Swarnkar on 02 Nov 2022

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on January 8, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Para 42.1, 43, 44.1,

42.1. After referring to Section 205 CrPC, Supreme Court held that it is within the powers of the Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence on his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on the accused and the comparative advantage would be less.
43. Delhi High Court in Chandramauli Prasad (supra) examined Section 205 CrPC in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Limited (supra) and held that provisions requiring the presence of the accused which mandate that the trial be held in his presence are enacted for the benefit of the accused. If the accused person himself does not wish to avail of the right of personal appearance on every date; if he reposes the fullest confidence in the court and in his advocate, and is confident that justice will be meted out to him even in his absence, then, provided his absence does not prejudice him in any way or hinder the progress of the trial, it is not necessary for the trial court to insist on his presence.
44.1. One of the criteria for exercising the power under Section 205 CrPC is that personal appearance of the accused on each and every date of trial should not result in unnecessary harassment of the accused. However, the Court must ensure that exemption from personal appearance is not abused to delay the trial.

And in Para 45,

45. In Hiremagalur Parthsarthy Shamalah (supra), Patna High Court while adverting to Section 205 CrPC and its discretionary nature, opined that power under Section 205 CrPC has to be exercised in a reasonable manner; Court should be liberal in granting exemption from personal appearance except where serious issues or allegations of moral turpitude are involved. Even after issuance of warrant, the High Court may dispense with the personal appearance in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC if a proper case is made out for the ends of justice. In that case, the revision petitioners were high officials posted at Pune and Shillong while the trial was to be conducted at Patna. It was held that inconvenience would be caused if they were required to be present on each and every date of hearing; more so when the revision petitioners had given undertaking to be physically present in Court when so ordered by the Court. Mere fact that cognizance had been taken and the offences alleged are non-bailable cannot be reasons for rejecting the prayer under Section 205 CrPC.

Finally from Paras 48 and 49,

48. In so far the impugned order is concerned, the trial court has taken note of the changed circumstances i.e., petitioner occupying the constitutional office of Chief Minister of the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh. However, trial court referred to certain observations made by this Court in the order dated 31.08.2017 that “offences committed by the petitioner are grave offences affecting the economy of the country”. I am afraid it is not open to the trial court to rely upon such observations at the very threshold. These are allegations against the petitioner brought in the form of charge sheet. At this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner had committed the offence(s). Further, the trial court erred that being away from Andhra Pradesh for two days was not a ground to invoke the discretion of the court. The trial court further erred in taking the view that the changed circumstances has no bearing having regard to the offences and allegations made by the respondent/CBI being grave in nature.
49. In my considered opinion, learned Principal Special Judge fell in grave error by bringing in the above factors while considering the request of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance. This is further aggravated by the observation of the learned Principal Special Judge that in criminal proceedings trial should be conducted in presence of the accused and therefore, his request for exemption from personal appearance should not be considered. I am afraid learned Principal Special Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the principle that trial has to be conducted in presence of the accused is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial; nothing is done behind the back of the accused. Provision seeking exemption from personal appearance is intended for the benefit of the accused. Those cannot be interpreted in a manner which causes hardship and prejudice to the accused.

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

The earlier order from trial Court is here.

Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs CBI on 01 Nov 2019

Index is here.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022

Posted on January 7, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of MP High Court held as follows, relying on Reema Aggarwal decision here

From Para 9,

9. Though it is an admitted position that complainant/respondent No.4 was already married and had a living spouse, when she contracted the second marriage with petitioner, however, there is no indication of word ‘valid marriage’ in Section 498-A of I.P.C. The language used therein is ‘husband or relative of husband’. These words not only rope in those who are validly married but also anyone who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022

Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 09 Sep 2008

Posted on December 28, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Patna High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. Section 317, Cr. P.C provides for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. However, if the Magistrate finds that personal appearance of the accused is necessary, he would direct that accused would no longer be represented on the next date by a pleader under Section 317, Cr. P.C but would appear in person. If the accused in spite of such order does not appear in person, it would be open for the learned Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Chapter-VI of the Cr. P.C and may also cancel bail and bail bond and proceed in accordance with Chapter XXXIII of the Cr. P.C It does not appear from the order of the preceding dates i.e 31-1-2008, 26-3-2008 that personal attendance of petitioner would no longer be dispensed with, and he is required to attend in person. The Magistrate in view of Section 317(1) Cr. P.C ought to have given an opportunity to an accused to appear in person who was being allowed to be represented through a pleader. The order of preceding dates in the case on the contrary shows that Magistrate in fact accepted the representation under Section 317, Cr. P.C The magistrate has to follow the procedure prescribed therein, if it does not dispenses with his personal attendance. A Magistrate while rejecting a representation under Section 317 Cr. P.C cannot at the same time cancel bail bond and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest, if on preceding dates has not clearly directed that personal attendance under Section 317, Cr. P.C will no longer be dispensed with. The Court ought to provide a reasonable opportunity to the accused to appear in person whose representation was earlier being allowed under Section 317, Cr. P.C In this case, it appears that trial lingered as a co-accused Prem Prakash was absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there have been no latches on his part.

Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 09 Sep 2008

Citations : [2009 AIR JHAR R 2 203], [2009 PLJR 2 260], [2008 SCC ONLINE PAT 254], [2009 (2) PLJR 263], [2009 CRI LJ 523]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49331607dba348f00518d

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Posted on December 27, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana HC held as follows,

From Paras 3-7,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the Calendar Case in question and the trial Court insisted personal appearance of the petitioner for each and every adjournment and the petitioner has to accompany his daughter for her admission into College and, therefore, exemption from appearance may be granted till 10th October, 2022 by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2022.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner can invoke Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as his personal appearance is insisted by the trial Court, he did not invoke the said provision.
6. When there is dire necessity for the Accused to be present elsewhere and, therefore, cannot attend the trial Court and make personal appearance, the Courts are liable to consider the ground urged and apply a pragmatic approach. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to dispose of the present Criminal Revision Case making such a direction.
7. Resultantly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, not to insist upon personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.280 of 2012 that is pending on the file of the said Court, in case the petitioner files an application either under Section 317/205 Cr.P.C. or under Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, by raising just and sufficient ground for exemption of personal appearance till 10th October, 2022.

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Posted on December 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge allowed the marking of documents and examination via video conferencing tools.

From Para 2,

2. In the course of the trial of the case, the respondent had filed Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022 under Section 275(1) Cr.P.C and 285(3) of Cr.P.C to permit the respondent to mark documents and to depose before the Court of Trial via Skype or Blue Jeans or any other alternative electronic media and for costs. This application was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 31.03.2021 with certain conditions.

From Para 5,

5. Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Hima Bindu learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the application would be covered by the provisions of Section 273 of Cr.P.C and mere mentioning of a wrong provision in the order would not invalidate the order. She submits that Section 273 of Cr.P.C only stipulates that evidence taken during the course of trial should be in the presence of the accused and there is no restriction as to where the evidence can be recorded. She would further rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs Dr Praful B.Desai1. She contends, on the basis of the above Judgment, that recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is permissible and does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 9,

9. Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the right of cross examination of the petitioner has been forfeited by the trial Court, during the pendency of the present petition. If an order has been passed, the same shall be disregarded and the trial Court shall afford an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner as and when the respondent makes necessary arrangements in terms of the order for being examined through video conference. For this purpose, the respondent shall be given two weeks from today to comply with the directions of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

The time limit to finish Cross Examination through Video conferencing was extended considering some difficulty.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 11 Nov 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Posted on December 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Landmark judgment here, Single bench of AP HC held that,

From Para 6,

6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to strictly comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This would include the requirement of the respondents uploading all the complaints registered by the respondents on to the website of the police authorities or the website of the State Government, in the absence of any website being maintained by the police authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Ayush Mahendra Vs State of Telangana on 05 Jan 2021

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Nimesh Dilipbhai Brahmbhatt Vs Hitesh Jayantilal Patel on 02 May 2022

Khushbu Devi @ Kumari Khushbu Vs Shekhar Kumar Swarnkar on 02 Nov 2022

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022

Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022

Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 09 Sep 2008

Phani Bhushan Potu Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Aug 2022

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022