Allowed

Mankari Satish v. The State Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2021CRLP/1460/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana allowed criminal petition for bail filed by Mankari Satish in connection with NDPS charges. Court granted release on personal bond with sureties subject to conditions including regular appearance and restrictions on similar activities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties under specified conditions

Mankari Satish Vs The State Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[^31s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: f 460 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mankari Satish, S/o. Raghunath Rao

¶8

Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court T.S

¶11

RespondenUComplainant

¶12

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to enlarge the^petitioner A- 3 on bail in Cr. No 1104 of 2020 of P.S Uppal Rachakonda in the interest of^justice.

¶13

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHAMMED ABDUL QADER, Advocate for the Petitioner and Asst. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

ORDER:

)

I I

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1460 of 2021

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and^{439 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the^{petitioner/A3} seeking^{to grantbail} to him in connection with Cr.No.1104 of 2020 on the file of Uppal^Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences^punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 2O(bXiiXB) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the^{petitioner/A3,} learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenfstate and perused the record - 3. Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that the^petitioner being the brother of 44 has been falsely implicated in the^present crime and he has nothing to do with the alleged^ganja business. He further submits that even as per the remand report, the petitioner and A4 were directed by A2 to collect ganja packets from 41 in the auto and to hand over the same in the house of A2 and after loading ganja^packets in the said auto belongs to A1 , the^petitioner was apprehended along with A1 and A4 and the alleged contraband was seized from their^joint possession and as such, the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged business or other financial transactions made between Al and A2. He also submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court in the event of his enlargement on bail.

¶22

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, but submitted that at the instance of 42 only, the other accused were transporting the alleged ganja in the auto of ,A1 to the house of A2. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and looking into the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner/A3 and as he is not

¶23

I t

¶24

¶25

involved in any similar type of offences earlier, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioneriA3.

¶26

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/A3 is directed to be released on bail, subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶27

(i) The petitioner/A3 shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the lll Metropoliian Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy.

¶28

(ii) On such release, the petitioner/A3 shall appear before the lnvestigating Officer on every Saturday between 10.00 AM to 2.00 PM., till completion of investigation or filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶29

(iii) the petitioner/A3 shall appear before the Court concerned personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of trial.

¶30

(iv) the petitioner/A3 shall not indulge in any similar type of activities, in future; lf he is indulged in similar type of activities in future, liberty granted to him shall stand cancelled automatically

¶31

(v) the petitioner/A3 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶32

(vi) the petitioner/A3 shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶33

(vii) the petitioner/A3 shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

¶35

petition, shall stand closed.

/TTRUE^COPY"

SEC N OFFTCER

To,

The lll Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy

¶43

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal District.

¶44

The Station House Officer, P.S. Uppal, Rachakonda.

¶45

One CC to SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL QADER Advocate IOPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶47

One spare copy

mvJ

HIGH COURT

GSD,J

DATED:01 10412021

ORDER

ATE
e ri{
i-\ t [PS"iv' a-".:
*
,'

¶54

CRLP.No.1460 of 2021

¶55

BAIL

Mankari Satish v. The State Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mankari Satish v. The State Telangana

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

Suguna Ram and Another Vs State of Telangana

Nacharam Sunny Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Ganesh Mukharjee Vs The State of Telangana

Marka Mallesh, Rr.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Radheshyam Baheti Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others

Mahipal Reddy, Medak Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.