Allowed

Baliram Rathod v. The State

Telangana HC1 Mar 2018CRLP/2101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition for bail was filed by the accused charged under NDPS Act for transporting ganja. The High Court, noting the accused was not directly involved in dealing with the contraband, granted bail despite the commercial quantity alleged.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed; the petitioner is enlarged on bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties for a like sum each.

Baliram Rathod Vs The State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

I{ IG H COT] RT O I.' J U D I CAl' I.J R O AT I I Y D Ii RA,BA I) FO II. TIIE S'TATE OF TELANCi\NA AND TI-IE S'I-ATE OII ANDTIIIA PITADT]SH THURSADA)" TIIE FIIiST DA'OF MAIi.CH TWO THOUSANI) AND hlciliTEEN

¶3

:I'ltliSEN'l':

¶4

,IIIE HON'BI-E SNI'I. JUS'I'If]I''I" RA.'ANI

¶5

CRIlll.-\L l'ETl'l ION \0:ll0l OI l1)18

¶6

Betwccn:

¶7

Balilarn Rathocl S/o Lakki Rarn Rathorl

¶8

Pct itioncrr Accused No. I

¶9

AND

¶10

Thc Statc, through, the Senior Intclligencc Olliccr, Dircctonrte o1'l(cvenue lntelligcnce. Masab Tank, Hyrlclab:rd. rep. by Special Public ProsccLrtor firr DRI, Hyrlerabad.

¶11

Res1.rontlenti Complainarrt

¶12

Petition under Sections 437 & 139 of Cr.P.C., praying tliat in tlie circunrstances stated in the petition and the grour.rds fllcd herein, the High Coud may be pleased to enlarge thc petitioner/Accused No.l on bail in connection with the F-.No. DRI/HZU/48C/ENO-42(INT3l)2017 o11 the flle of the Directorate ol Revcnue Intclligence, Zonal Unit, I'lydcrabad, in the intcrest ofj usticei

¶13

Counscl fol' thc l'etitioncr stil P.sRtltAl{tNAl'tI ,npe/.i *l Counscl lbr tlrc l{cspondent I LI I'UBLIC PROSECUTOR (TS)

¶14

The Court rnaclc the follorving:

¶15

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2101 of 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This criminal petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by petitioner/Al in F.No.DRl/HZUl48ClENO-42(lNT-31) 2017 of DRl, Zonal Unit, Hyderabad, seeking bail. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 20,28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A'1 was transporting ganja in his vehicle on 12.12.2017 having knowledge of the same.

¶20

The counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has no acquaintance with A2, who approached him and offered huge changes for transporting the ganja.

¶21

The Public Prosecutor submits that as the ganja involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner is not directly involved \r' in dealing with the ganja, this Court opined that this is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner/A1.

¶23

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/Al is enlarged on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the lVletropolitan

¶24

.'"

¶25

TR,J Crl.P. No.2101of2018

¶26

¶27

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and on such release, petitioner shall appear before the Directorate of Revenue lntelligence, Zonal Unit, Hyderabad, on every day between 10.00 AN,4 and 12.00 Noon. 9. IVliscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this criminal

¶28

petition shall stand closed.

¶29

//TRUE COPY'

¶30

,.3$;ff$ilJlXlJIi"^*

¶31

Iror ASSTSTANT^REGIS'fRAR

¶32

¶33

I . The Mctrollolitan^Sessions 'ludge,^{llytlcrirbatl}

¶34

i. iir.^{Sr',1,",'i,rtentlent. Cl.tcnchalgudaC entral Pri.sou'} .^llyderabacl'

¶35

The^{Senior Intelligence Ot-t't""'',Di'""tntatctll ReVctlLtclrrtelligence' MasabTank'} l-ly,.lellbad. - p".^-o1

¶36

o ii,.) cir,f,fiujlJirnr""utor.,^{(TS) l-liglicour.t of Judicaturc,at Hyderabad (ou't)}

¶37

one CC^to ff^{P.slihcrinath. Atlvocctc tOPUCI}

¶38

(r. one SPare Co1.rY

¶39

H I(;l t c()trltl

¶40

-IR,J

¶41

DATE:0^{I -3-2{}I tt}

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRL.P.^{NO.2l(ll oF 2018}

¶44

lL\lL

¶45

s.'
/

Baliram Rathod v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Rathod v. The State

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

Vimal , Vijaynathan Nirmal Vs The State of Telangana

N.Veera Babu Vs The State of A.P

Panyam Pedda Pullamma Vs The State of Ap.

Punam Satyanarayana Dora, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

M.Dharma Reddy Vs State of Ap.

Dilip Maithy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh