Allowed

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Feb 2021CRLP/198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, accused under the NDPS Act for possessing chlorazole, in view of his lack of prior criminal record despite the prosecution's opposition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for similar amounts, subject to various conditions including appearance on Saturdays and non-employment of similar activities in fu

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶2

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRL.P. NO: 198 OF 2021

¶6

Between

¶7

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad, S/o Gopisetti Raghavaiah

¶8

Petitio ner/Accu sed No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, through P.S Excise Quthbullapur

¶11

, .. .. Respondent

¶12

Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge Petitioney'Accused No.2 on bail, in Crlme No. 3212020 registered by PS Excise Quthubilapur, for the offence U/Sec. 8(c) R/w. Sec. 22 (c) of NDPS Act 1985, on such terms and conditions as this Court deem fit and proper.

¶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 L Harish, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the Court made the following.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

¶16

IIONOURABLE JUSTICEG. SRI DEVI

¶17

¶18

(]RIMINAL PETITION NO.198 OF 2O2l

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The petiticner I A-2 filed the^present Criminal Petition^under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal^{Procedure seeking to} grant bail to him in Crime No.32 of 2O2O of P.S. Quthbullapur, Medchal Distric:, which was registered for the offence^punishable under Section B(c) r/w 22(cl of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2, the learned Additional Proset:utor representing the respondent- State and^perused the record.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioner /A-2 is that on 2-.t.O9.2O2O, on credible infor:nation about the accused transporting intoxicating chemical substances, the Excise officials conducted route watch at Raghavendra Btravan, Gandimisamma X Road and found the accused persons in possession of 1.210 Kg CLOBAZAM and they confessed to hav,-- purchased the same from A-3 for Rs.3,00,000/per Kg and hence they arrested the accused.

¶23

Learned AdCitional Public Prosecu_tor opposed to grant bail to the petitioner/A-2.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and .T e is falsely implicated in the above case. The petitioner/A-2 is in custody since 16. 10.2O20. Hence, it is prayed to consider the petitioner's application for bail.

¶26

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged and as

there are no previous criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A-2.

¶31

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-2 shall be

¶32

released on bail on the foilowing terms and conditions:

¶33

(i) That the petitioner/A-2 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar;

¶34

(ii) That the petitioner/A-2 shall appear before the investigating authorities on every Saturday between IO.OO am and 5.00 pm till conclusion of investigation and submission of final report;

¶35

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

¶36

(iv) that the petitioner/A-2 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶37

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

¶38

(vi) that the petitioner/A-2 shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.

¶39

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

¶40

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha1l stand closed.

¶41

¶42

/ /IRUE^{COPY I I}

¶43

SD/. CH. VENKATESWARLU ASSISTANT REGIS R SECTI OFFiCER

¶44

¶45

¶46

1 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar 2 The Superinteldent, Central Jail, Cherlapally, R.R.District

¶47

3 The Station House Officer, Police Station Excise Quthubilapur

¶48

4 Two CCs to thr: Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶49

5 One CC to Sri L Harish, Advocate (OPUC)

¶50

6 One spare cop^y.

HIGH COURT

GSD,J

DATED: 04.O2,2O2L

ORDER:

CRLP. NO: 198 of 2021

¶56

BAIL

¶57

.$.,^<br><br>(

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopisetti Nagendra Prasad 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

Guguloth Heerala, Heeru , Veeranna and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapandu Suresh and another Vs The State of Telangana

R. Venkata Krishnaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sode Lingaiah , Tula Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana