Allowed

Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Apr 2021CRLP/169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court bench allowed a criminal petition seeking bail for two accused (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) charged with possession of ganja under the NDPS Act. The petitioners had no prior criminal antecedents. They were granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties and mandatory conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties, reporting to investigating authorities on every third Saturday, and specific conditions against tampering and recidivism.

Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[-1rs8 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA A'I'HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: t69 OF 2021

¶7

Betrv een:

¶8

l. Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy, S/o.Keshava Reddy, 2. Loka Madhukar, S/o.Babu Rao,

¶9

.,.,Petitioners/Accused No.2&3

¶10

AND

¶11

The State ofTelangana, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ,...Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Petition under Sections 437& 439 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 release the petitioners/ A.2 and A3 on bail in connection with Crime No.360 of 2020 of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station in the interest ofjustice.

¶13

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments ofSri .1.P. Srikanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutur for Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶14

ORI)EIt

¶15

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶16

C:RIMINAL PETITION NO.169 OF 2O2I

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioners/A-2 and A-3 {iled the present Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to grant bail to them in Crime No.36O of 2O2O of P.S. Bhadrachalam Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, which was registered lor the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read ri,ith 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondentState and perused the record.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 is that on 11.10.2020 at 7.OO or, the Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S. Bhadrachalam Town along with staff while performing vehicle checking at Forest Check Post, Bhadrachalam, stopped one Maruti Swift Dzire car bearing No.AP-29-AT- iO58 and seized six bags of ganj a weighing about 123.900 kgs from the possession of the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and effected their arrest.

¶21

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 but conceded to the fact that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 do not have any previous criminal antecedents.

¶22

Learned cor-lnsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are falsely implicated in the above case. The

++-:, *3

petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are in custody since 1 1.1O.2O2o. The present petitioners were carrying the contraband only at the instructions of A-1. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the^- petitionerslA-2 and A-3 are having previous criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed to consider the petitioners' application for bail.

¶27

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 have no previous criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A-2 and A-3.

¶28

The Criminai Petition is allowed and the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:

¶29

(i) That the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties lor a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam;

¶30

(ii) That the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall appear before the investigating authorities on every third Saturday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm ti1l conclusion of investigation and submission of final report;

¶31

(iii) That the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall not indulge in similar type of activities in future and if it is found that they are indulged in similar- type of activities in future, the liberty granted to them shall automatically stand cancelled and they would be taken into custody forthwith.

¶32

(i") that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶33

(v) that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶34

(vi) that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 sha1l not misuse the liberty granted to them.

¶35

(vii) that the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 shall appear before the Court concerned personally on each date of hearing till conclusion of trial.

¶36

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

' SD/- K.AMMAJI Ass ts't.\N1'^{llli(; ts'tltAll}

//TRI.iE COPY//

+^*

SECT OT'FICER

1 . The Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases Under Narcotic Drugs and

¶43

Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Jude at Khammam.

¶44

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam.

¶45

The Superintendent, District Jail, Khammam.

¶46

The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Khammarn District

¶47

One CC to Sri J.P. Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

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

¶49

One spare copy

IL---

HIGII C()T'RT

(;sl).J

DATEI): 09.01.2021

CRL.P.NO.l69^()F 2021

¶56

BAII,

¶57

tiE S
* crAL
3*\a<br>ili) 0
I ".DF1l t., 7N21I
t't
\i; , *
1"..,;"

Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poreddy Thirupathi Reddy v. The State of 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

V. Rakesh Kumar , Babloo Vs The State of Telangana

Shivaji,Kolikineni Shivaji Vs The State of Telangana

T. Durgesh Vs State of Telangana

Thatikanti Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Katturi Jaya Sree, Adilabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano