The High Court · 2025

. This Petition coming on for hearing;,upon perusing the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and utlon hearing the arguments of Smt. Swathi Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additiona! Public Prosecutor on behirlf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOI'RABI,E SUT. JI'STICE K. SUJANA CRIIIIIIAL PgfITIOt IrIo.1()774 ol 2ol25; f.f t,lTf,ffiI Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in SC.NDPS No.39 of 2O2O on the file of the: learned Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2019 Detective Inspector K. Ravi Kumar of Banjara Hilts police station received credible information that two persons, Livio Joseph Almeid.a @ Piyush and Ubalanka Shankar, were in illegal possession of cocaine near a house in Bhagath Singh Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad. Basing on this information, he obtained permission from his superior and proceeded to the l<lcation along with other offrcers and staff. They apprehended the two accused at the spot and, upon enquiry, both zrdmitted to possessing cocaine with t.l.e intent to sell. I After informing them of their rights under Section 5o of the NDPS Act, they were searched in the presence of a Gazetted ofl-rcer and mediators. From Livio, 15 grams of cocaine and 2 sKs,J Crl.P.Ito. 1O774 ol 2OZs two mobile phones were seized; from Shankar, 10 grams of cocaine and one mobile phone were seized. [.a.ter, based on Shankar's confession, police searched his house and seized an additional 61 grarrrs of cocaine, packing materials, and related items. A total of 86 grarns of cocaine was recovered'

3. Heard smt. swathi sharrna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well.as Sri Syed Yasar Marnoon, learned Additional Rrblic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.1 in the present case under section 8(c) r/w 21(b) of the NDPS Act, could not aPpear before the trial court on 07.05.2025 as he was already in judicial custody in another case in crime No.357 of 2025 since 25.04.2025. Due to his absence and lack of representatign, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued, and he was lat€r arrestd on 24.07.2025 and remanded. He was granted bait in the other case by the High court on 06.08.2025 but continues to remain in custody due to the warrant in this case. His absence was not deliberate, and he i i 3 sKsr, Crl.P.I{o. 10774 ol 2o[2S is now willing to follow any conditions. for release, appear regukrrly before the trial Court, and furnish sureties as requircd. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this crimind petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Pr.rblic Proser:utor submitted that there are serious allegations againr;t the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was granted bait in S.C. NDPS No. 39 of 2020, but while on bai[, he committed another offience, registered under FIR No.357 of 2025. He also pointed out that tJle petitioner failed to aptrrcar before the trial Court as he was in judicial custody in connection with the subsequent offence. This, according to the le,erned Public Prosecutor, amounts to a violation of the conditions imposed while granting bail in S.C. NDPS No.39 of 2O2O. Therefore, he prayed that the criminal petition be dismis'sed.

6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions made by both k:arned counsel and on perusal of the material available on rer:ord, it is evident that a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner due to his absertce before the l {i.. I i I /t sKs,., Crl.P.IIo. 1O774 of 2Cr25 trial Court on O7.O5.2O25. According to the petitioner, his absence was not intentional but due to his judicial custody in connection with another criminal case registered under Crime No.357 of 2025, in which he was arrested on 25.O4 -2025. However, the fact remains that the petitioner did not take steps to inform the triat court about his custody through legal representation or appropriate application. His non- appearance and lack of communication led to the issuance of the warrant and his subsequent reman d, on 24-O7.2025. T. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner \ras alreldy on bail in s.c.NDPS No. 39 of 2O2O when he allegedly committed the subsequent offence in 2025. This conduct not only indicates a prima facie breach of the conditions of the earlier b+l but also raises concerns regarding the petitioner's adherence to legal obligations while on bail. The case under the NDPS Act pertains to serious allegations involving offences under Section 8(c) r/w 2l(bl, and the crime is of tJre year 2OL8, with the Sessions Case pending since 2O2O. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, taking note of the prolonged pendency of the trial, the trial court is directed to expedite the -{ I / .:"' I 5 srrs,J CrLP.IIo.1O774 of 2o/25 proceedings and dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a coPY of this order.

8. [n view of the above discussion, this criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD'. ,/TRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER , High Court for the State of Telangana' \ To, 1 2. 3 4 a I I ; ! : I .,: : , I HIGH COUR:T DATED:2910812025 ORDER CRLP.No. 1 0',tl 4 oi 2O2S $ fIri \ o() 2l JAN 2025 i I - ').rl \)'"-'/ P^T DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION. ,r)rr WL