✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Criminal Petition No. 7114 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Criminal Petition No. 7114 of 2012SAMUDRALA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. The petitioner/A-10 is directed to surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail thereafter. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 04, 2012

Judgment

The petitioner/A-10 is accused of offences punishable under Section 379/34/109 I.P.C and Sections 20 and 29 of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (mistakenly referred as A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 at some place). A-10 is Deputy Forest Range Officer (Enforcement), Itchoda range, Adilabad. The allegation against him is that he colluded and conspired with Forest produce smugglers of Adilabad on receipt of monthly bribes of Rs.32,000/- and allowed the smugglers to fell and carry away teakwood trees. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that except the alleged confession statement of A-9 there is no material in support of the said allegation. The investigation material revealed that A-9 was contacting A-10 through cell phones whose numbers are furnished and moving the felled teakwood trees. Investigation of the case is pending. Having regard to the said serious allegation against A-10, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Operative part

2.

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. The petitioner/A-10 is directed to surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail thereafter. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 04, 2012

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: 2) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 109, 379; A.P. Forest Act, 1967 — ss. 20, 29; A.P. Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 7114 of 2012). ← Search more judgments