The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri UMESH SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioner and Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, The Court made the following ORDER: I I T THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2263 OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/A. 1 seeking bail in connection with Crime No.336 of 2024 of Mangalhat Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3O7 r/w.Section of 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short'l.P.C).

2. The case of the prosecution is ttrat on O8.06.2O24, a case was registered based on a complaint given by Sri Surendar Singh, who stated that on 07.06.2024, he was attacked by Man Mohan Singh (A. 1), Shanker Singh @ Kala Shankar (A.2) at Raheempura Ground. By seeing them, the complainant ran from there, but A. 1 and. A.2 caught hold him from back side, A. 1 beat him with Axe on his head. The complainant again escaped from the accused, started running in the streets of Raheempura ald ran into one cellar of. Ravinder Tent House, entered into a room and locked the door from inside. A. 1, A.2 and other accused also entered in the cellar and threatened him to come out and hil th<' door with axe. When the complainant ran out t -./t \ 2 II from the room, again the accused beat him on his stomach with axe and he received severe bleeding injury on his head. The attackers, allegedly motivated by previous grudges, beat the complainant, despite attempts by bystanders to intervene, the attackers continued their assault, as the accused suspects that the complainant is watching their illegal activities, they planned to eliminate him. Basing on the said complaint police registered the crime against the accused.

3. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learhed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. The present crime is registered on 08.06.2024 and petitioner was granted bail on O4.1O.2O24 in Crl.M.P.No.4473 of 2024, btut again he was arrested by cancelling his regular bail granted on O4.7O.2O24 and remanded to judicial custody again on L4.12.2O24, even though all the conditions stipulated in the order dated

04.1O.2024 are complied. A11 the allegations made against the I I I +. petitioner are false and he has nothing to do with this case. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner never committed any offence and never vioiated the conditions of bail I 3 order as alleged by the police. Cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner is only to harass the petitioner by making false allegations. All the material witnesses were examined and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that initially petitioner herein was granted bail on 04 .1O.2O24 , but thereafter he threatened the witnesses for which a case was registered in Cr.No.534 of 2024, and the police hled petition for cancellation of bail which was granted by the trial Court. He further contended that a rowdy sheet was also opened against the petitioner and he is also .involved in several cases. However, there are no changed circumstances from the earlier bail application. As such, prayed to dismiss this petition .

6. Considcring the submissions of both the counsel and the material on record, the contention of learned cgunsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner never violated the conditions of bail granted by the trial Court, the bail was cancelled. Petitioner is in jail from 14.12.2024, whereas the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that there are several cases pending against this petitioner. However the trial is not 4 yet commenced, if petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of petitioner threatening the witnesses at this stage' Further this is the second bail application and there are no changed circumstances subsequent to lht earlier bail application. As such, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for bai1. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall sland I I I l, l l l , i l closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. KAVITHA ASSI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Z. fhe nOOf . Sessions Judge for the Trial oiJubilee Hills Car Bomb Clast Case- cum-Addl. Family Court--cum-)fill Addl Chief Judgecum- lX Addl Sessions Judge, HYderabad : i'r-r""ivr Aoot. cni"r Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally' Hyderabad +. ff'l" Srp"rintendent, Chanchalguda Central Prison' Chenchalguda' . Hyderabad S i6" Strtion House Officer, Mangalhat P S ' Hyderabad O Onu CC to SRI. UIMESH SINGH Advocate [OPUC] ;. i;; cc.L Fuarrc pnbseCuron, Hish bourt a:t Hvderabad (our) 8. Two CD CoPies Vsm/nsk Hr HIGH COUR'I' DATED:2710212025 k o (J 6 S 14 I t 1r[ A P R zIIff * Dll ?S AT C ,i' a z A ORDER CRLP.No.2263 ot 2025 i j i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \\,f"a Y,4- -ffia'