- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
E. Vallabh Reddy v. The State of Telangana
[ 3215 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 558 of 2 024 Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 26-02-2024 made in Crl.MP.No.SB of 2024 in Cr.No.24B ol 2023 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
Between:
E..Vallabh Red-dy, S/o E. Rangasai Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No.3-6-1 48, Street No. 1 7, Himayathnagar, Hyderab-ad. ...Accused/Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through p.S. Narayanaguda, High Cou( Building, at Hyderabad.
...RespondenURespondent
2. K. Jaipal Reddy, S/o Gunna Reddy, Age: 59 years, Occ: Advocate Clerk, R:/o H.No.2-3-64l'10/fu86, Jaiswal Gardens, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant
(Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party).
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
THE HONOURABLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REIVISON CASE No.558 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2024 in Crime No.248 of 2023 by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard the leamed counsel for the petitioner and the leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. The respondent No.2 was shown as not a necessary party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the peritioner filed an application under Sections 45 I and 457 of Cr.P.C. fbr retum of his mobile phone i.e. iPhone 13, Serial No.HR6Y9C46WL, IMEI 35056610 8013166, colour alpine green Sim No.9989206525. He stated rhat during the course of investigation, the Police Narayanaguda seized the said mobile phone from him. He was the owner of the said mobile phone and it contained his personal data. He required the phone for banking purpose and for personal use and if the same was not stored properly and the battery was not charged, the same would affect its utility and functional value and as such, filed an application for retum of the said mobile phone. Learned
2
w
2
Dt(;Nt.t atlR( Nb j58 of 2U! IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed orders for retum of the property, but ordered the same to be released in favour of the petitioner- accused on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum.
3.1. He further submitted that the leamed Magistrate failed to see that the value of the phone itself was not Rs.50,0001 and erred in putting the condition of executing personal bond for Rs.50,0001 with one surety for the like sum and prayed to modifo the impugned order.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reported no objection for modiffing the order as prayed for.
5. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.248 of 2023 which was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for causing murder of his wife and disappearance ofevidence. During the course of investigation, the said iPhone was seized from the possession of the petitioner-accused. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and deposited the case property before the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The leamed Magistrate, on considering that the petitioner was the owner of the case property and no putpose would be served by keeping the same idle and there was every possibility of damage of the property if
3
J
Dr t;llP..l ltl ll( No.tji ol :0:r the same was kept for longer period without use, allowed the petition directing the property to be released in favor of the petitioner-accused on condition of his executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum. The petitioner was aggrieved by the condition of t
producing one surety for the said amount. Leamed counsel for the I bond for Rs.50,000/- as ordered by the leamed IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and requested to relax the condition of producing one surety for the like sum
6. Hence, considering the submissions of the leamed counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Additional Public prosecutor, it is considered fit to modify the impugned order by directing the mobile phone of the petitioner to be released in his favour on his executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- without the requirement of producing surety for the like sum.
petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready to execute the personal
7
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed modi$,ing the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2024 in Crime No.248 of 2023 by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the mobile phone of the petitioner-accused i.e. iphone 13, Serial No.HR6Y9C46WL, IMEI 35056610 8013166, colour alpine green Sim No.9989206525 is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner on his
---
\
+ '?!ir:a5
4
t)r t;Rll_./ (tl R( .\o 5:u ol )0)t ).. executing a personal bond for Rs.50,0001 (Rupees hfty thousand only) without producing any surety for the like sum.
Miscellaneous applications, pending ifany, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. PRATHIMA
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
Y7
SECTION OFFICER
1. The lX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad City District.
3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)
4. One CC to M/s. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate tOPUCj
5. Two CD Copies kam
To,
5
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2310412024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.558 ot 2024
ALLOWING THE
CRIMINAL
REVISION CASE
o
J 2 4 i,ii ?til E STAi(
i
f. v4
6
Alert