Back
B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
K. C. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late K. C. Rami Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
This petition is filed U/s.438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to direct the respondent/police to enlarge the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.103/2024 of Dharmavaram I Town Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that they were implicated as A-1 to A-3 in the above crime for the offence under sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act 2015, which was registered basing on a written report presented by Mr.Birru Rajasekhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘defacto-complainant’), father of Mr.Birru Sampath Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’).
3. The case of the defacto-complainant is that the deceased was practising as an advocate at Hindupur and also working as National Secretary of National Students Union of India (N.S.U.I.) and In-charge of Kerala State. The deceased and one Mr.Srikanth are friends. There were disputes between Srikanth and A-1 with respect to a land situated at Melapuram Cross, Hindupur Town. The deceas
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted when there is substantial evidence indicating the accused's involvement in serious offenses.
The court ruled that anticipatory bail is not warranted when substantial evidence suggests involvement in serious criminal offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of incriminating evidence, such as cell phone conversations and meetings, in determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail in a m....
The nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail are crucial factors in determining the ....
Communications between a client and an advocate are not privileged under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act when the purpose of the communication is to further a crime.
Anticipatory bail should only be granted under exceptional circumstances; the court must consider the nature of accusations, the applicant's history, and potential risks to public safety and the inve....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
