Allowed

Bontha Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2021CRLP/306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court granted bail to petitioner Bontha Raju accused in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of ganja. The court noted investigation was complete and petitioner was ready to abide by conditions. Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties and specific reporting requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, subject to appearing before IO and not committing similar offences.

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

¶1

[^315E ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: /-

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 306 OF 202'l

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bontha Raju, S/o. B. Venkateshwarlu

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

AND

¶9

The represented by Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, through High CouS.H.O ',Prt at Hyderabad.^{S Prohibition and} Excise, Uppal,

¶10

...RespondYomplainant

¶11

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 on bail arrested in C.O.R.No.109 of 2020, of P.S Prohibition and Excise Station, Uppal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District, on such terms and conditions.

¶12

¶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.

oRDER:

TIIE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

(IRIMINAL PETITION No.3O6 0P 2021

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.4 seeking to grant bail to him in C.O.R.No.109 of 2O2O of Prohibition and Excise Station, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned r-'ounsel lor the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been faisely implicated in this case and he was not at all found present at the time of seizure of alleged Ganja weighing about 66 Kgs. He further submitted that already the very same police have registered crime in C.O.R.No.108 of 2O2O against the petitioner basing on the confessional statement of accused in the said case and thereafter, showing the petitioner as abscorLding, the present F.l.R. in C.O.R.No.IO9 of 2O2O has been registert:d against the petitioner showing 66 Kgs., of dry Ganja in possession of petitioner and a<:cordingly, he has been arrested on 18.12.2O20. He further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.12.2020 by this time, the investigation in this case has already been completed and almost all the material witnesses have been examined. The present case as well as the crime in C.O.R.No.108 of 2O2O h,ave been registered by the same police, though there was no recovery whatsoever from the possession of the petitioner. The

¶23

¶24

petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court in the event he is enlarged on bail.

¶25

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 in C.O.R.No. 108 ol 2O2O, nothing has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and only basing on the confessional statement of other accused in the said crime, the petitioner has been involved in the present crime i.e., in C.O.R.No. 108 of 2O2O. He also further conceded to the fact that prior to institution of aforesaid two cases, no other criminal case was pending against the petitioner.

¶26

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 19 .12.2O2O, without adverting to the merits of the case, the petitioner/accused No.4 can be granted bail.

¶27

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:

¶28

(i) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be released on bail on .his executing personal bond for Rs.30,00O/(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.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer on every 1st and 3'd Saturday between 10:00 AM and 2:OO PM till completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.

¶30

¶31

Thereafter, he shall personally appear before the Court concerned on each date of hearing.

¶32

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

¶33

(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 fc,und to be involved in similar type of offences during pendency ol 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.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

-- /_ )

sD,/ -^M.MAN]ULA

ASSISTANT^R

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTto OFFICER

To,

The Vll Additional Metropotitan Magistrate, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

¶43

The Metropolitan sessions Judge, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

¶44

The S.H.O., P.S Prohibition and Excise Station, Uppal, Medhcat-Matkajgiri District.

¶45

The Superintendent, Central Prison, CherlapglJy_-

¶46

One CC to M/s. K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI.

¶47

Two ccs to PUBLIc PROSECUToR, High co'urfforthe state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶48

¶49

One spare copy ZEE

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:15/0312021

ORDER

,-*f

CRLP.No.306 of 2021

BAIL

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