AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 298 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioners are accused in connection with G.R. Case No.400 of 2023, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Malkangiri, arising out of Chitrakonda P.S. Case No.107 of 2023 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 457/380/34 IPC.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 26.07.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners were arrested for committing similar offence on 3.7.2023 and has been remanded in the case at hand on 12.07.2123.
It is further submitted that apart from the case in which he was taken into custody, there is no other criminal antecedent.
It is the submission of the learned counsel that because of criminal proclivity, the Petitioners have been cited as accused in the case at hand and the allegation is theft of Rs.12,000/- from the house of the Informant by breaking open the almirah.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail during currency of investigation and keeping in view the criminal proclivity of the Petitioners.
Taking into account that the Petitioners have one criminal antecedent as stated, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
Before releasing, learned Court below shall verify the assertion regarding criminal antecedent of the Petitioners. If the Petitioners have more than one criminal antecedent of similar nature, this order shall stand recalled.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.
……………………………….