Allowed

Jadhav Santosh v. The Additional Assistant Director

Telangana HC8 Sept 2020CRLP/3132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, High Court allowed bail petition filed by petitioner accused seeking modification of bond conditions imposed by Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Court reduced bond amount from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.25,000 with sureties due to petitioner's role as driver and lack of recovered material.

What did the court decide?

Condition of personal bond reduced to Rs.25,000 with two sureties for like sum each. Other conditions remain unchanged.

Jadhav Santosh Vs The Additional Assistant Director — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

[3168 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3132 OF 2020

¶7

Behvecn:

¶8

Jadhav Santosh, Sl o. Jadhav Hari Singh,

¶9

....Petitioner/Accused No. I

¶10

AND

¶11

The Additional Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, # 10-2-28915711 &2, Suryavanshi Residency, Ii-Cross Road, Shantinagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500028.

¶12

..,.Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Petition under Section 439(l)(B) of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/Accused No.l herein to modify the order passed by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P. No.37l of 2020, vide order dt.07.02.2020 i.e. the following:

¶14

"to relaxation the condition in order dated 07.02.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.37l of 2020 in F.No. DRI/HZU/48C/ENQ-32(INT-22)/2019 of DRI, Hyderabad, for the Offence U/sec.167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. R/W Sec.34(A)/2 of NDPS Act, that the petitioner/accused no.l shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,0001 with two sureties instead of Rs.1,00,000/-"

¶15

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.S.P.CHAKRAVARTHI Advocate for the Petitioner and MT.A.RAJASHEI(AR REDDY Special Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

{

¶18

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶19

CFIMINAL PETITION No.3132 OF 2020

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.l seeking relaxation of the condition of executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties imposed in the order dared 07 .02.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.371 of 2020 in F.No.DRI/F{ZU/48C/ENQ-32(INT22)12019 of DRI, Hyderabad, by the leamed Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to that of executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000i- with two sureties.

¶22

The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in F.No.DRL/FZUI 48C/ENQ-32([NT-22)12019 of DRI, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. read with 34 (A) (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial Court vide order dated 07.02.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.37l of 2020, has granted regular bail to the petitioner - accused No.l on the condition of executing a personal bond fbr Rs.1,00,000/- rvith two (02) sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction ofthe said Court.

¶23

Mr. S. P. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe and he is only a driver. Nothing was recovered from him. Basing on the

¶24

)

¶25

confessional statement made by accused No.2, the petitioner was implicated in the above crime. Thus, he sought to relax the condition.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. A. Rajashekhar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has involved in Cr.No.54 of 2018 for the very same offence and, therefore, sought to dismiss the present petition.

¶27

On perusal of the entire record, the trial Court has granted bail to the petitioner on condition of fumishing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner is only a driver. Nothing was recovered from him. Accused No.2 was granted regular bail. The material was seized from accused No.2. Considering the said facts, this Court is inclined to modif, the condition imposed by the trial Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed in part modiffing the condition No.1 in paragraph No.6 of the order, dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.37l of 2020 in F.No.DRI/FZU/48C/ENQ-32(INT22)12019 of DRI, Hyderabad, as that of the petitioner - accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court in place of the petitioner executing a^personal bond

¶29

¶30

¶31

for Rs.1,00,000/-. The other conditions imposed by the trial Court

¶32

¶33

shall remain unchanged.

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶35

criminal petirion shall stand closed.

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SD/- N. CiIANDRI\SEKt{A l'1..{O ASSISTANT

¶38

SECTIO FFICER

¶39

T o 1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The Additional Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, # 10-2-28915711 & 2, Sur.vavanshi Residency, II-Cross Road, Shantinagar, Masabtank. Hyderabad^- 500028.

¶40

1. One CC to SRI. S P CHAKRAVARTHI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the NIR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY, Special Public Prosecutor (TG), High Cou( at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶41

1. One spare copy

IIIGH COURT

KL.J

DATED; 08.09.2020

OF
. J (/,

CRL.P.NO.3132 0F²⁰²⁰

BAIL

Jadhav Santosh v. The Additional Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadhav Santosh v. The Additional Assistant Director

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

K. Amulya Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Maladi Ramadevi ,Naramma and 2 others Vs The State

Maladi Subba Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Azmath , Mohammed Azmathullah Khan Vs The State of Telangana

R.Rama Koteshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Neeli Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana