Dismissed

Aslam Ali Naikwadi v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2021CRLP/8950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail under Cr. P.C. Sections 437 and 439 in an NCB case involving 640 kgs of ganja. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the seizure of such a large quantity barred bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the petitioner's lack of ownership of the vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Cr.P.C. Sections 437 and 439 dismissed; petitioner not entitled to grant of bail.

Aslam Ali Naikwadi Vs The state of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8950 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aslam Ali Naikwadi, S/o Late Ali Shaik Aged about 39 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Backside of .MSRTC Work Shop Beside Kame Eta Bhatti, Osmanabad, Maharastra--I13501.

¶9

...PETITIONETVACCUSED No.6

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telangana, rep-byjlsSperidPublic Prosper*tor reps by its Special public prosecu tor Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau

¶12

...... ...Union of India, Narcotics Conkol Bureau

¶13

Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub-Zone.

¶14

..FESPONDENVCOMPLATNANT

¶15

Petition under Section 437 &. 439 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 bail to the petitioner pending investigation/ trial.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and.upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Sridhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

¶20

HON'B ,E SMT. JUSTICE^{LALITHAKANNEGA.NTI}

¶21

CI IMINAL PETI^{TION No.895O of 2O21}

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Thi ; Criminal^{Petition under Sections 4i)7 and 439} Cr.P.C. is lilec^{by petitibner} -^{AccusedNo' 6 inNCBF'No'} 481 llSl2O2TlltCBlSUB-ZONE/HYD^{registered for the offence} punishable und:r^{Section 8(c) readwith Section 20(b)(iiXC)' 28 and} 29 of Narcotic^{Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesAct' 1985'} seeking^bai1.

¶24

The case of^{prosecutionis that oo 04 'o4 '2021} '^on receipt of specif^{c informationby the lntelligenceOflicer'Narcotics} Control Bureau^{Hyderabad Sub-Zone that Accused Nos land 2} along with^{threeother associatesfrom MairarashtraState are likely} to traffic a subs^{antial quantityof Canjato Osmanabad and Pune} via Hyderabad^{:rom Sileru, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)' in} Eicher truck^{wil-rRegistration No MH14 BJ 2693and Swift Dzire} Car with^{Registr ationNo' MH 12 PQ 7 837} '^{and the sriid vehicles} are likely^{to cro is Outer RingRoad - Warangal Highway lowards} MaharashtraStrte,nearGhatkesarTollPlaza,atarc,und23.30 hours,^{team of l CB proceededto the saidlocationand on noticing} the said^{car r nd truck crossingTo11 Plaza of} Ghatkesar' intercepted^{the ;ame lt is allegedthat on thorough search' they} found two^{plas'ic gunnybags containingsealed paclcets in the} dickey^{and on rpeningthe said bags lt is alleged that when} weighed^{the ent re seizedstock' it is found46 kgs of ganja in car} andinEicher.ruck,643kgs.andbasingontheconfessionof those accused,^{( ther accused werearrested'}

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel^{for petitionerSri S' Sridhar} submits that^{petitionerwas arrayed as AccusedNo'6 and it is} aliegedthatahugecontrabandof640kgs.isseizedinthiscrime. He submits that^{initially,co-accused were arrested on 04'O4'2021} and basing on their^{confession,petitioner was arrested on} 07.0g.2O21. He also submits^{that as per the law laid down by the} Apex Court, confession^{of other accused cannotbe a basis} According to him, though it is the^{case of prosecution that} petitioner is owner of Eicher vehicle, which was used^for transportation of ganja, the said vehicie does not stand in his name. Further, as per the case of prosecution, petitic.rner was in regular touch lr,ith other accused, the said phone number does not stand in the name of petitioner, and in fact, it belongs to his brother and as per the Registration Certificate, petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and it stands in the name of L.W.6. it is submitted that though a commercial quantity is seized in this crime, petitioner is able to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. As there are no reasonable grounds to beiieve that petitioner committed the offence alleged and as he is languishing in jail from the last 100 days, learned counsel submits that his case may be considered for grant of bail.

¶27

4, On the other hand, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed along with the complaint. Learned Standing Counsel for NCB Sri B. Narsimha Sharma submits that transporter has stated before the respondents that mobile number of Eicher Truck driver is 8459391881 and mobile number of driver of car is gl72}2g1g8. It is stated that analysis of CDR of mobile number revealed that Accused No.2 is in the tower location of Andhra pradesh three

I I

times and he i lso was found^{to be in regular col-ltac:twith} It is also stated that^{he called the mobile number} suppliers. belonging to letitioner,^{who arrangedEicher Truck for} transportation^{ol ganja which corroboratesthe statement made by} other accused^{ar-'l even during the trip also, they were found to be} in continuous^{r cuch with AccusedNo'4'Learned Standing} Counsel^{submits that as per the call data of Accused No'5' it is} revealedthatheisincontinuoustouchwithpetitioner,who,on thedateofincidtnt,wasfoundtobetravellingtoAndhlaPradesh and as^{per the tower location,he n'as in Rajanagaram'East} Godavari^{Distric . He further submitsthat itis not alo:rethe} confession^{of co accused,but there are other circumstancesto} connect^{petition'rwith this crime} He submits^r-hathuge contraband^{of 64 ) kgs. is seized in this crilne'as such'in view of} the bar under^{S( ction 37 of the ACt,petitioner is not entitledfor} grant of bail.

¶32

Takir g into^{considerationthe fact thathuge} contraband^{of 641) kgs' is seized in this crimeand as thereis pnmo} faae^{mateial to ;how the involvement of petitioner in the alleged} crime, this^{Cour . is of the view that in view of the bar under} Section^{37 of the NDPSAct' petitioner is nol entitledfor grantof} bail

¶33

6 The⁽ riminal^{Petition is accordingly} '^cltsmisscd

¶34

Sd/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR l\r./ ,TRUE^COPY// SE.CTION^OFFICER

¶35

To 1 The X,l^{Additionar vletropolitan Magistrate,cyberabad, at L.B.r'Jagar' Ranga} Reddv^District

¶36

a. 3x tfl*l^{B i,i?xs';ii&:;aH?5y!!L:"1"::?,.,,r,"S,a,e.r} ; ;;; 6cs to^{the Sp :cial Public Prosecutor'High cot}

¶37

i"fung"nu' HYder€ 5ad (OUT)

¶38

1. Two CD^CoPies 6. One SPare^CoPY Kj.

HIGH GOURT

DATED:1711212321

ORDER

1 $t:, !iIAfA-
,<
?
!2. 12 iAN 2022
* i:
DFs PAIC

¶43

CRLP.No.8950^{of 2021}

¶44

CRL.P.^{IS DISNIISSED.}

¶45

ilL.l/"\N2

Aslam Ali Naikwadi v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam Ali Naikwadi 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

K Konda Sai Praveen, Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Bharath Thukral

Kamma Manohari and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Madireddy Srinivas Reddy, Vs Tejawath Tukya

G.Ashok Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Kordhala Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana