Kilari Anand Paul @ KA Paul @ Dr. K. A. Paul VS State of Telangana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

N. TUKARAMJI
Kilari Anand Paul @ KA Paul @ Dr. K. A. Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1-State: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’), assailing the order dated 18.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.335 of 2023 in S.C. No.241 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. I have heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

3. The revision petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.9 in the above Sessions Case, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 379, 404, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”). During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition. In doing so, it referred to (i) the statement of the de facto complainant/Accused No.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., (ii) records of conversations between Accused Nos.1, 7, and the petitioner/Accused No.9, and (iii) analysis of call data records, which allegedly indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the conspi