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

2009 Supreme(AP) 786

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
MOHD CHAND PASHA @ CHAND
VS.
STATE OF A. P.
Criminal Petition Nos. 8676, 8023 and 8183 of 2009
Decided on : NOVEMBER 6, 2009

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

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437 and 439 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B read with section 149 - Arms Act - Section 25 and 27 (1) - Seeking regular bails - Investigating - Actual incident - Evidence - Petitioner in criminal Petition is petitioner in Criminal Petition and petitioner in Criminal petition - They filed these applications under Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bails in crime on the file of Police Station registered for offences under sections 147 B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act - HEARD learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Public prosecutor for State - Prosecution case is as follows accused and deceased are cousins - deceased and father of were doing joint auto finance business at About two years back started business by investigating an amount of which is joint amount of father of and deceased - Had developed bad habits and he was spending money lavishly - The deceased after verifying records and coming to know loss of business directed to stop his business and also warned for his lavish spending – Held In circumstances I am inclined to consider bail application of and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of with two sureties for a like sum each to satisfaction of xiv Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate petitioner is directed to regularly attend Court and shall not tamper the prosecution evidence - AS most of accused are in jail since about one year and though there was an earlier direction by this Court to expedite framing of charges but till today no charges have been framed - I consider it just and reasonable to direct lower Court to complete stage of framing of charges with thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and shall commence trial within two months and conduct trial on day to day basis - The accused and prosecution should assist Court in framing charges and in concluding trial as early as possible - IN the result Criminal Petition of and Criminal Petition no - stands dismissed and Criminal Petition is allowed subject to conditions observations - Criminal Petition no. 8676 of 2009 of A-6 and Criminal Petition no. 8023 of 2009 of A-7 stands dismissed and the Criminal Petition No. 8183 of 2009 of a-9 is allowed

(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 to know loss of gold jewellery business, directed A-1 to stop his business and also warned A-1 for his lavish spending. A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to eliminate him. A-1 discussed with A-11, A-11 introduced A-10 to A-1, A-1 directed A-7 to attend the job of eliminating the deceased. A-1 contacted A-7 through his cell phone No. 9912699999 on 13-8-2008. A perusal of the call details of a-7 through his phone No. 9705544673 reveals that A-1 contacted him thrice on 13-8-2008, four times on 14-8-2008, three times on 16-8-2008, two times on 20-08-2008 and twelve times on 21-8-2008. On verification of the tower locations of the cell phones of the Accused A-7, A-3, A-5 and a-1 shows that, in the evening hours they had assembled at Panjagutta/khairatabad and contacted each other and entered into a contract to kill the deceased for an amount of rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only ). A-1 had paid an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) towards advance to A-3, A-5 and A-7. In pursuance of their conspiracy, A-3, A-5 and A-7secured some sharp edged weapons, made some phone calls to eliminate the deceased but were unsuccessful. A-1 was pressurizing the accused to execute their plan as early as possible. A-3 had friendship with A-8, A-3 contacted A-8, A-8 in turn contacted A-9, a-9 in turn contacted A-2. A-8 called A-4 and a-2, A-4, A-8 and A-9 discussed with each other. They agreed to commit the murder of the deceased for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only ). As per their plan, a-2, A-4, A-8 and A-9 came to Zaheerabad on 29-10-2008, they contacted A-3, A-5, A-6. In furtherance of their plan, A_2 to A-9 came to hyderabad on 30-10-2008 and met A-1 and as per his instructions, A-2 to A-6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to execute their plan but as there were some persons, they could not execute their plan. Later, A-1 to A-6 and A-8 and A-9 discussed with each other and sent A-8 and a-9 to their native place. On 31-10-2008 at about 6. 30 p. m. , A-2 to A-6 formed themselves into unlawful assembly and had gone to the place of offence at that time, A-2 was carrying a country made pistol with ammunition, a-3 was carrying a sword and was waiting at the turning point, A-4 was carrying a country made pistol and standing beside a-2 in front of the house of the deceased with an intention to attack and kill him. A-5 and a-6 were standing at a distance with an intention to attack the deceased if he escapes from A-2 and A-4. The accused A-1 was standing in his house on the second floor and giving directions quite frequently to A-2 to a-6 and contacting with A-3 in cell phone. While so, at about 07-15 p. m. to 07-30 p. m. when the deceased came to the spot in his maruthi Zen Car bearing No








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top