Allowed

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

Telangana HC3 Feb 2021CRLP/289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons involved in an NDPS case. The court observed they were falsely implicated based on a co-accused's confession with no direct evidence against them, ordering surrender within 15 days on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to surrender within 15 days on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO on Saturdays, and abiding by Section 438(2) conditions.

Guguloth Heerala, Heeru , Veeranna and 2 Others Vs The… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[^31s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 289 OF 2O2t

¶6

Between:

¶7

Guguloth Heerala@ Heeru @ Veeranna, S/o, Fakeera

¶8

(Banoth) Dharmsothu Venkanna, S/o. Raju,

¶9

(SK) Mohammad Sarwar Ali, S/o. Azam Ali,

¶10

Petitioners/Accused No.5 to A7

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through P.S. Sathupalli, Khammam District.

¶13

Respondent/Compla inant

¶14

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused No 5 to 47 in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 105 of 2019, PS Sathupalli, Khammam District

¶15

The petition coming on for hearing, upon peruslng the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T SRUJAN KUMAR^REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional PUBLIC^{PROSECUTORfor} the Sole Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

::RIMINAL PETI TION No.289 of 2021

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the^{petitioners/A5} to A7 seeking to^grant anticipatory bail in 1he event of their arrest in Cr.No.105 of 2019 on the file of Sathupalli Polic€, Station, Khammam District, registered for the offence punishable under Siection B(c) read with Section 2O(b)(iixc) of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶21

Heard the l,:arned counsel for the^{petitioners/As} to A7, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record

¶22

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners/A5} to A7 would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime based on the confession made by A2. He further submits that the no contraband is seized from the^possession of the petitioners anc they *"r" noi^present during transportation of the alleged contraband. He also submits that the^petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court in the event of their enlargement on anticipatory bail.

¶23

Learned Adc itional Public Prosecutor though vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners, fairly submitted that exr;ept the confessional statenrent of A2, no role whatsoever has been attributed against the petitioners regarding their involvement in commission of the aforesaid crime.

¶24

A perusal of the record would show that the occurrence is alleged to have been takerr place on^'19.04.2019 and 41 was arrested on the

)

same day and that based on the confessional statement of 41, A2 was brought to the Court on PT warrant and thereafter, based on the confessional statement of A2 recorded on 15.10.2019, the names of petitioners/As to A7 have been implicated along with A3 and A4. However, till date, except the confessional statement of A2, nothing can be elicited during the course of investigation with regard to the role of the petitioners in commission of the aforesaid crime. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as there are no criminal antecedents earlier against the^petitioners, lam inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A5 to A7.

¶29

The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioners/A5 to A7 are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶30

(1) The petitioners/A5 to A7 are directed to surrender before the Station House Ofiicer, Sathupalli Police Station, Khammam District, within a period of 15 days from the date of this order and on such surrender, the said Stalion House Officer shall release the petitionersiA5 to A7 on bail on their executing a^personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to his satisfaction.

¶31

(2) On such release, the petitioners/A5 to A7 shall appear before the lnvestigating Officer on every Saturday between 10.00 AM to

¶32

2.00 PM till completion of investigation or filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶33

(3) The petitioners/A5 to A7 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶34

¶35

¶36

(4) The petitioners/As to A7 shall^{not misuse the liberty granted}

¶37

¶38

to them.

¶39

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending in this criminal petition,}

¶40

shall stand clot;ed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

Sdi -^{R. KARTH I KIIY'4ir-} ASSIS^{ANT IIEGISTRAIi} \9L-

¶43

SECTI ON OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sathupally.

¶46

The Station House Officer,. P.S. Sathupalli, Khammam District.

¶47

One CC to SRl. T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderaba,j. [OU1-]

¶49

One Spare Copy

HIGH^COURT

GSDJ

DATED:03/02/202'l

sttl$$Ifi

ORDER

CRLP.No.289^{ol 2021}

¶57

BAIL

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guguloth Heerala, Heeru , Veeranna and 2 Others 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

Mohammed Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapandu Suresh and another Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkoju Madhu Mohan Vs The State of Telangana