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 Arun Kumar Dodla Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. N. Niranjan Reddy(Sr. Counsel) Representing Sri. V. Rajender Rao Advocate on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TEL 1NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S[ JANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10993 of 2(t: ;5 DATE:15.12.2O25 Betrpeen: The State of Telangana Through the Station House Officer, Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Public prosecutor, High Court for the Sate of Telangana, Hyderabad - 500066 Annamaneni Surya Petitioner / ?espondent Respond: tt/Accused No. 1 AND ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the prosec, ion seeking canceilation of the bail granted to the respondent/ a :cused No. 1 by order dated 07.08.2O25 in Crl.M.p.No. t649 of I 025 passed by the learned XIII Additional District and Ses s ons Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (trial Court)_ 2 -

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecution representing the petitioner - State and learned counsel for the respondent- accused No.2 The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 3. is that while granting bail to accused No' 1, the trial Court observed in paragraph No.8 of its order dated 07'O8'2025 that no contraband was seized from the possession of accused No l and that there were no specihc allegations against him to attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 27 arrd' 29 of the NDPS Act and was further observed that the name of accused No. 1 was included only on the basis of the confession of other accused.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that accused No.1 was arrested on 07 'O7 2025 ' The petitioner was the driver of the TATA Scorpio vehicle bearing No' TSO8JM2O22, and upon search, the petitioner was found in possession of 3.2 grams of OG Weed Ganja and 1'60 grams of Ecstasy Pills kept in the dickey of the car, as well as 10 grams of cocaine concealed in a woman's right-leg chappal placed inside a cardboard box. Without properly considering this material, the trial Court erroneously observed that no contraband was seized 3 from accused No.1 and that his arrest was basc< only on the confessional statements of co-accused and grant i 1 bail to the accused No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, th( prosecution seeks cancella tion oI bail.

5. On the other hand, learned coun s 11 lor the respondent/ accused No. 1 submitted that the obsr: vation of the trial Court was only a clerical mistake and that tl c trial Court had earlier granted bail to accused Nos. 14 and 19 on

23.07.2025, and subsequently granted bail to ar:r.r sed No.1 on 07 .O8.2O25. The error in paragraph No.8 of t t- : order was corrected by the triai Court itself by its order datrrr 12.1 1.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.I (,. 9 of 2025 in Crime No.2 of 2025- In paragraph No. 13 of the corr :ction order, the trial Court clarihed that the words "no corr raband was seized" shall be read as "contraband was seizecl. '' trezrting the earlier statement as a clerical error. Since the ( ( rrection has already been made, and bail once granted cannor le cancelled ) mercly on such grounds, and requested the Court r dismiss the petition-

6. Upon consideration of the submissions advar ced by both learned counsel and on careful examination of tl-r,: record. ir is noted that the prosecution Iiled this petition for cancellation of bail on the ground of a wrong observation made by the trial Court. It is evident that contraband was indeed seized from accused No.1, namely 3.2 grams of OG Weed Ganja, 1.60 grams of Ecstasy Pills, and 10 grams of cocainc. Though the trial Court initially observed otherwise, the said error was subsequently corrected by its order, clearly recording that contraband was seized from accused No.1. Once the correction has been made, and the seizure stands admitted, there are no valid grounds to cancel the baii already granted. An accused cannot bc penalized for a clerical mistake committed by the trial Court. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the peti tion. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed J SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xlll Additional D_istrict and Sessions Judge AT HYDERABAD L.B. Nagar, Cyber6bad, Ranga Reddy Distirct. C..,r<.L -

2. The SHO Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TG Anti N a cotic Bureau, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 3 One CC to SRI V RAJENDER RAO Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the )tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies i \ PK/PSL -Ta &K\ HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 I I CRLP.No.10993 of 2025 . i--. iSrAii: (1 .) o I B Jt\N itlt I r) ,+ + I I CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. >/,/,^