Dismissed

Sayyadarif Sami v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2022CRLP/356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged the bail condition requiring a local surety for a narcotics offender. The court, finding no valid grounds to relax the condition given the petitioner's lack of acquaintance in the district, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking relaxation of the bail condition requiring one surety to be local is dismissed.

Sayyadarif Sami Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 356 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 440(1) read with 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking relaxation of the condition i.e. “with two sureties for a like sum out of which one surety shall be local” which is imposed in order, dated 14.09.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 2021 by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmahendravaram.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶5

The petitioner/A3, who is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, was granted bail by the Court below vide aforementioned order on the condition of the petitioner executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for a likesum each out of which one surety shall be local and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned Station House Officer, on every Wednesday between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. till filing of the charge sheet.

¶6

The present petition is filed seeking relaxation of producing one local surety on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Seetaram Pet, Tanduru Mandal of Ranga Reddy District of Telangana State and that he has no acquaintance with anyone and he is stranger to East Godavari District. It appears that the above condition which is

¶7

¶8

sought to be relaxed was imposed by the Court below by taking into consideration that the petitioner belongs to the State of Telanaga and this Court finds no valid grounds to relax the aforementioned condition. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶12

Date: 01.02.2022 ikn

¶13

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶15

CRIMINAL PETITION No.356 of 2022

¶16

01.02.2022

¶17

ikn

Sayyadarif Sami v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyadarif Sami v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peruri Ramamurthy Vs the State of Ap

Kanne Yarrappa Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mortha Nagababu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tokala Yalamandaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajjala Uma Shankar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Prdesh

Konakandla Srinivasa Chary, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh