Allowed

Bontha Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2021CRLP/302/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, upon hearing arguments regarding a bail application under Cr.P.C. 437 and 439 filed by an accused in a narcotic drugs case, allowed the petition and ordered the grant of bail subject to specific conditions including personal bond and restrictions on witness influence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on bail subject to conditions of personal bond of Rs. 30,000/we sureties, appearing before IO, and complying with conduct restrictions.

Bontha Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁵⁸ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD A/ONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF TUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRiMINAL PETITION NO: 302 OF 202'I

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bontha Raju, S/o. B. Venkateshwarlu

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S Prohibition and Excise, Uppal, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

...RespondenUComplainant

¶12

Petition under Section 437 and 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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail arrested in C.O.R.No.108 of 2020, of P.S Prohibition and Excise Station, Uppal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District, on such terms and conditions.

¶13

The petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s K. VENUMADHAV Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the Court made the following.

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

THI} HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶16

C]RIMINAL PETITION No.3O2 OF 2O2I

¶17

ORDERT

¶18

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and^{439 cf Cr.P.C.,} is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 seeking to^{grantbair. to him in} C.O.R.No.108 o.. 2O2O of Prohibition and Excise Staticn,^Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, for the offence^punishable under Section 8 (c) read with ilO (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.4 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State. Perused the record

¶20

Learned c:ounsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he^.,vas not at all found present at the time of seizure of alleged Ganjer weighing about 200Kgs. .:{e further submitted that basing on the cc,nfessional statement of other accused, the petitioner was brought on P.T.warrant in this case on 19.12.2020 by the very same police in C.O.R.No.109 of 2O2O and since then he is in judicial custody. He further submits, that the petitioner is in^judicial custody since 19.12.2020 by 1.his time, the investigation in this case h,as already been completed and almost all the material witnesses .eave been examined. The present case as well as the crime in C.O.R.No.109 of 2O2O have been registered by the same police, though therre was no recovery whatst>ever from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is rea<ly to abide by any condition imposed by thrs Court in the event he is enlarged on bail.

¶21

¶22

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor though vehemently opposed the bail application submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has been involved in two cases, conceded to the fact that nothing has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and only basing on the confessional statement of other accused, the petitioner has been involved in the present crime. He also further conceded to the fact that prior to institution of the present case as well the crime in C.O.R.no. 109 ol 2O2O, no other criminal case was pending against the petitioner.

¶23

Thus, looking into nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 1,9 .1,2.2O2O, without adverting to the merits of the case, the petitioner/ accused No.4 can be granted bail.

¶24

Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/Accused No.4 is directed to be released on bail, subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶25

(i) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.30,0O0/(Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two sureties to the like amount each to the satisfaction of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶26

(ii) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer on every 1"t and 3'd Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM ti1l completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet. Thereafter, he sha11 personally appear before the Court concerned on each date of hearing.

¶27

¶28

¶29

(iii) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

(iv) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not indulge in similar type of offences during pendency of this case as well as the cases pending against him. If petitioner is found to be involved in similar type of offences during pendency of this case or if he violates any of the conditions imposed in this order, the bail granted to him shall automatically stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

¶33

sol^{- K" ONESIM} ASSISTANT^RE

//TRUE COPY//

w SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Vll Additional^{MekopolitanMagistrate,cyberabad,Ranga ReddyDistrictat} L.B Nagar

¶38

2 TheMetropolitansessionsJudge,Cyberabad'RangaReddyDistrictatL.BNagar. 3. The S.H.O.,^D.S Prohibition and Excise^{Station, Uppal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri} District.

¶39

The Superintendent,^{CentralPrison,Cherlapally'}

¶40

One CC to M/s.^{K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate} [OPUC]'

¶41

Two CCs to^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High courtfor the state of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OIJT].

¶42

One spare coPY ZEE

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:1 5/0312021

ORDER

tt 5 tlj$$ti

CRLP.No.302 of 2021

BAIL

-rF-'---

Bontha Raju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bontha Raju 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

T. Appala Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Matta Jyothirmai, Vs The State of Telangana

Birudu Ramulu Vs Keesara Susheela

Bontha Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddameedi Vinay Vs State of Telangana

Erravelli Umesh Vs State of Telangana