SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(AP) 786

B.CHANDRA KUMAR
MOHD CHAND PASHA @ CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, Mohd.Ashraf Ali, Mohd.Moin Ahmed Quadri,

(1) THESE three applications have been filed by A-6, A-7 and A-9. The petitioner in criminal Petition No. 8676 of 2009 is A-6, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 8023 of 2009 if A-7 and the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 8183 of 2009 is A-9. They filed these applications under Section 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bails in crime No. 990 of 2008 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 and 27 (1) of the Arms Act.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case is as follows: The accused No. 1 and deceased are cousins. The deceased (Rajeev Sisodia) and father of A-1 were doing joint auto finance business at hyderabad. About two years back, A-1 started jewellery business by investigating an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only), which is the joint amount of the father of the A-1 and deceased. A-1 had developed bad habits and he was spending money lavishly. The deceased after verifying the records and coming








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top