✦ High Court of India · 03 Jan 2025

Prosecutor High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Jan 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
03 Jan 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,192 words

Acts & Sections

Order

T lrc prcscnt Criminal Petition is filed pra-_ving trlis C()urt t() cnlargc the petitioner who is arrayed as accuscd

No. I in (lrrnc No. l356 of 2O24 registered for thr r.rffirtrcirs ptrnish:rbli' unclcr Sections 8(c) read with 20(b) [ii) (c) rrnrl 2() ()l t lre Nzrrcr>tit-- Drugs and Psychotropic Subst:rni'es At't. j.r35 (Ibr- short 'NDPS ActJ before the Mecrpcl lblir-r: SlaLron. Rirch:rkonda Commissionerate, on bail

2. i'iil irrici facl.s of the case are that on 30.I 1..2O-2.i 21r 1 illt it,'irr.,., ih,,. police received credible irLib rl;l r; r,'- r IlrrIcrro cirr bearing number nrs l1 (r ri i '-(l ltalnlll)()i i ilrq qalnJZl from Injapur via Turkavarrlrrl il, ( ) ir rr-i r it igr 'l ht' police intercepted the r,etricir' .i rir i folri.ri i : i.rls li g;rnjir in three plastic bags. 'l'l'rc ,-!rr.. r'r'. Ranr;rvrrii. irirair Kumar/ petitioner, con[esseC i.r Ll-i1,1sl),,r'i. .- l l r(r :f:rniir from Mangampadu, Allrrn [ii:;l r-tr:i. Andrr:r i'i,r.ir':lr, i(; Maharashtra, ak-,ng rrii.t i,,- 2 SI(S,J ('rl.P.No. I 5903 of 2024 accomplices, Narender Narya Naari and Bharath. They had purchased the ganja for Rs. 1,50,O00 and planned lo sell it at a higher price in Maharashtra. The accused were arrested, and a confessional cum seizurr: panchanama was recorded in ttre presence of mediators. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri M.Sateesh, Iearncd t:out-rsel lor petitioner, and Sri Syed Yasar Matnoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearir.tg lor respondent - State.

4. trarned counsel for the petitioni'r s'-tlrrnittc<l that thc petitioner is innocent of the of[en<:e u'ith ri'hich he *-as charged and has been falsely inlpli( t'.t.d ii'. titt' tttsc. |Ie contended that he was not prcsent at ttte scr:nt: of t he irlleged offence, and was not in posscssior: , rl' :in-r' ga Ilj:r, and was not travelling in the veiricl(' ill tltlesti()tl. He contended that petitioner was implicatccl in tlre ci.tsc u-ith rnala Jide intention and for statisticzrl [)Llrlx)scs ortl''- Flc IlLmented that the seized substancc docs not iltli uitrlcr [:'8.-1I: !i:f sti..i.. r Crl. P.No. 15903 i)l 2024 l.hc cit:llrriii.rn oi liat;.ja as per the NDPS Act, as it onlJ, consisted ll'glrn-ia leaves and not flo\.r'ering or fruiting tops. I-lc ar,,crrcd that the petitioner has ber:n in jail custodr sinc. :ti) l1 .2024, and that there has been n<.r progross in thc investigation. He asserted that the famill' of pctiiioilcr', including his old-aged parents, are depcnricni orr l:is earnings, and his absence has causecl Lhem harclship.'lherefore, prayed this Court to grant bail to lhe I)ctl:()ner bl' allowing this criminal petition. 5 ( )il otircr- hand, learned Additional Publit: i)i oscr:Lilol oolroscci rhe submissions made by the learned corrnst L lr;r' iirt' [)critioner stating that the zrllegations lr,,,r'1,:,i .rt i,.st lhr' F ctitioner are of serious nature as the r:r;nLrirl;:rirrl s!.rzcii bl thc Police was of 72 Kgs, rx,hicir is c()nIrn('r'cii i rirkrntrl-r,. TherefOre, prayed the Court to riisit i .. ri, 'r'nirr;rl ,rr.tition. t). ar lrtri rr.ll:lld to the rival submissions made iind on {orn! ri.",)irqir ,,itr' :-naterial placed on record, it rs Ilo[c(i Lilir iir,: irnrrtgri grievance of learned counsel lor lhc 4 SKS,J Crl.l'.No l5()03 of 2O2,i pctitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in thri case and that he is no way concerned w-ith the allcged olfencc, rvhereas, it is the specihc stanct ol learned Additional Public Prosecutor that substantial quantity o[ garrjzr, weighing about 72 kgs was seized from the pr:titioner.

7. At this stage, it is imperative to nolc that the contraband seized from the petitioner is a commercial .lr.lantlty. That being so, it is relevant to extracl Section 37 ol the NDPS Act, which reads as under: ":17. Offences to be cognizable and rtotr l)a!lable. -- (1) Notwithstandirlg t'.nl'thirre. coirtained in the Code of Criminal Procedllre, 1973 {2 of S7 al,--(al every offence punishablc urrllcr this Act shall be coglizable; (b) no person accused of an offent-c punishable for 1[offences under section l(j oI scr:;ion 24 or section 27A and also for offctrct-s involving commercial quantttyt shali irt: it'lcased on bail or on his own bond urlless i,'' 5 SKS.J Crl P No lsq03 o12024 (il llrc PLll)li( Pr()secutor has been given an ol)l)orrLrnir\ t.) oppose the application for such tt'ieiisr', arrrl lri) \\'h(re thc Public Prosecutor opposes the .i:)plrr-ration, the court is satisfied that thcre irrc rcasonatric grounds for believing that he is lo1 gurlll of sttclt offence and that he is not Iriielr.to tornrnit ant offcnce rvhile on bail. .l) ih( lrr!utalions on granting of bail specified rr r iaust (b) ol-sulr section (1) are in addition lo rhe liolitatrons utrdcr the Code of Criminal I'ro(c(lru.. i()7:) (2 of 1974) or any other law lr lir, tinr,' lx lnli in lorce on granting of bail." I tt. in llcr',' lhe'rcol. rt ls clear that Section 37 of the NDI'}S ;\( r {rilr.jirics 1ll.ti offences involving commercial quantilics l;t' :-rorr baiial-)le, requiring reasonable grounds to bclir-''.',' lhc :ri'r:usecl is not guilty and unlikely to conrrnit lrlrt lrr'r oiltnCcs rVhilc on bail. Given the serious .rlicglll l()r s ;rgrLirist tlIC petitioner, this Court is not satisiri rl iL'rirl ( ()llilill{)tls fi)r granting bail under Section 6 SKS,.J Crl. P.No.15903 ot 2024 .l / arc me t. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit zLnd tire same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Misccllancous applications, if any pending, shall si nal ciosed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASS T T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Meerpet. Rachakonda Commissionerate 3. One CC to Sri Munuga Sateesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 ORDER CRLP.No.15903 ot 2024 R rnt. UtA 14: (. o -) q 01 firB 20zs \.. i! ($A ..,r4 a (n( Z a I +t Dismissing the Griminal Petition )

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments