Dismissed

Mohammed Hakeem v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2021CRLP/280/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Telangana refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was the owner of a lorry seized with drugs, directing him to surrender within two weeks. The Criminal Petition filed under Article 226 for quashing was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; direction to surrender before the Court concerned within two weeks.

Mohammed Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N O:280 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Hakeem, S/o. Shameel aged about 34 years, Occ Business, R/o. Borabanda, Balnagar, Hyderabad, periranent Rlo. H'.ruo i-Sb, W;.i-M"dri District.

¶9

,..Petitioner/Accused No.S

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of relangana, represented_by its pubric prosecutor, High court, at fl.VderabaA,^{Through Police Station Kaliatiya University Cimpr.,-W"ranb]rf '} Drstrict.

¶12

... Respon de nUCom p la ina nt

¶13

Petition under section 438 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused No 5 in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No. 311 ot 2020, police station Kakatiya University campus, Warangal District.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r. Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent,

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITI ON No .28O ot 2021

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal^petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by petitioner/A5, seeking to grant anticipatory bair to him in cr.No.31 1 0f 2020 on the fire of Kakatiya University Campus police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offence B(c) read with Section 2O(bxii) of NDpS Act, 1985, against him.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/As, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondenlstate and perused the record

¶21

lt is alleged in the compraint that on 2i .11.2020 at .r2.00 hours at Chinthaguttu Bridge, while the S.l. of police along with his staff was conducting vehicle check, they stopped a car and lorry and found four persons in those vehicles, and on interrogation, they revealed their names and on search of car, they found 50 bags containing 2 Kgs of dry ganja in each bag and in the rorry, they found 50 bags containing 2 kgs of dry ganja in each bag, total 200 kgs of dry ganja. The police seized the said contraband under a cover of panchanama and registered a case against the accused.

¶22

4' Learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner/A. are all false, frivolous and concocted and that the petitioner was not present during search and seizure of the alleged contraband and that the only allegation

¶23

¶24

against him is that he is the owner of lorry. He further submits that the name of petitioner was implicated based on the confession of 41 to 44 and he has nothing to do with the transportation of alleged contraband. He also submits that the entire investigation is completed' except filing of charge sheet and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

¶25

Learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the relief sought in the petition,

¶26

As seen from the contents of the remand report and other material papers, the petitioner is the owner of rorry, wherein the alleged contraband was seized by the police from 41 to 44. Thus, looking into the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner/A5 and other facts and circumstances, I am not incrined to grant anticipatory bail to him and his prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. However, the petitioner/A5 is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within two weeks from today and on such surrender and on filing an application for regular bail, the Court concerned shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶27

With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. B. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

¶28

petition, shall stand dismissed.

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

SD/. T.KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANTFEAGISTRAR SECTION^OFFICER

¶31

to'.,. ,n" station^{House officer, Kakatiya Universitycampus Police statlon,warangal} District.

¶32

2, ;;;'c'C.^{to the Additional Public Prosecutor'Highcourt for the state of} Telanqana, at bH 3; il i;if^{HYderabad s;;r"; (""i} [OUTI^{R"aav'Advocate[oPUCj}

¶33

1. Two CD^CoPies \T\I\K

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:03/0212021

ORDER

CRLP.No.280 of 2021

H I* Ir
).
3 il7 ttB 2021
C-
*
i.,A,T

¶40

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Mohammed Hakeem v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hakeem 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

Syed Akthar Vs State of Telangana

G. Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

B.Sudershan Goud and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

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

Chinthapandu Suresh and another Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkoju Madhu Mohan Vs The State of Telangana