Dismissed

Mohamad Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023CRLP/1115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court held that since the NDPS Act provides a 180-day investigation period which had not expired, no extension was required. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim statutory bail based on the alleged procedural violation of a non-existent extension order. The Criminal Petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ of bail praying for setting aside the implicit extension order under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was not granted; Petition dismissed.

Mohamad Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1115 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohamad Khan, S/o. Amanulla Khan, (A-1)

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

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 release the petitioner on bail in COR.No.166/2022 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhadrachalam under the provisions of section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. by setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 217 of 2022 by Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge at BhadradriKothagudem.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the N/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

HON BLE DT.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUM/\LATHA

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITIOMo. 1115 of 2O2i,

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Thrs s arr application filed under Section^':;/ Ql Cr.P.C. secking t}'r, (lor,rrt to enlarge the petitioner. wh() :ri arrayed as Accr-rsccl N r. I in C.O-R.No.166 of 2022 of Proribition and Excis< Pol .r. Sltation, Bhadrachalam, on statlrll)ry. bail bv settin!a.rsi( c lhc order that is rendered by the lipeci.rl Court lor trirI of rases under the Narcotic Drugs and 1)sy<:hotropic Srtbslirr-rcc: Ai t, Kothagudem, which \var; rendtrcd in Crl.M.l'].No. t. 17 of 2O2l'2 , dated 30 .O9 .2022 .

¶20

llearc flrr C.Sharan Reddy, learned cou.:,,{ll for tl're pctiliorrer a r,.r'ell as thc learned Additional Publtc l)rr,sectrtor u.ho rs rcpr, s( nling the Respondent-State.

¶21

ConLc rlinr3 thal. the petitioner is entitled irr sraturorv I;zril. lt.:rrne ,'r.lLnsel lor the petitioner submits !hat as J)cr S( ctron .l() \ c I thc Narcotic Drugs and^)s1'cl- otroltir: Strbslrrrrc'r,s ( t, the or-rtcr limit for the periocl o1- c.r tl rli tion <tl irrvcslrllzrtiol ritriclt is l:rid down under Section trlz (lr.P C.. rr lrir:lr srtvs I lirt ltc firLal report which has to be lai,l u,r.hin^(lo <lar s. htrs to l-rr. rcird as I 80 days and in cas€. an1 :>:ten sion of pcriorl rs r,.'(l lire(I, tlte Sltecial Court can ext(nd srtt-.:r periocl

¶22

¶23

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.No- l I l5 of 202J

¶24

upto one year basing on the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specifying the reasons for detention of the accused beyond the said period. Learned counsel states that the prosecuting agency moved an application for extension of period and the Court, without getting the petitioner produced before it physically or through electronic video linkage, passed an order of extension w,hich is impermissible under law. Learned counsel states that as the procedure contemplated thus is violated, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶25

Opposing the submission thus made, thc learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that thcrc u.as no rcquirement for the prosecuting agency to move an application lor extension of period as the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act permits thc prosecuting agency to complete the investigarion within igO da-vs. But without having knowledge of the saicl provision. thc concerned lnvestigating Officer moved an application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor stzrtes rhat rhe pctitioner was arrested and remanded to judicizrl custod-r. on O2.O7.2022 and thus, 18O days expires by 01.01.2023 But

¶26

¶27

Dr.⁽ S L.t t-tl.l'. ir.l I I5 of 2t)23

¶28

I t

¶29

an appli( rtion for cxtension of periorl was, movecl on 28.O9.2O2 ' itself. l-carned Additionat publrr: pt.osecutor furtht,r cc ttends that upon giving an oppor-._nitr to the counscl ft' tl-e petitioner, ll,ho u,as appeartr.l; be,fore the Specirll^(lo trt, ,trder 6f cxtelsion was granted an(l t.he refore, it cannot be iteld thrrt the procedure contemtr,Ji:1_ed is r.rot follorved.

¶30

'l'hor-t .h uiuch t'r'liance is placed by tJre learrred counsel for t hr: 1te itio;tcr irr support of his con tentio-.: upon the decrsion cr :h,,' F{611'[]c Apex Court in Jiga r t@ Jim,a,y Pravinchar dra Vs. State of Gujaratr, the 1>urpcrt of the said decision is hr,rt thc prcscnce of the accused before: the Special courl ls r(1 uire d for hclrring him and to give ar: i:rlclience to hirrt lrclorr t al:irrg r clccision lor extension ol' t. me for conr plt l ron rl investir.r:rtion. [r is clearly brought :rr recorcl by prod rrr l io n rl r:cr-tiflcrl copy of the proceeding ,sheet that pe:riodir':rl c tt n:;ion ol rr.m.rnd u,as done on prod:<:t.iotr of the accLrs(',1⁽ lt rcr phvsic:rliv or on verification thrcrugh viclco con Ii r-t rr cc FLrrthcr. lltt' rtrder rendered by the Sp,t,.cial Court goa's l() sllo ' th:rt iltr ()llp()rtunity rvas given to tlLe oounscl

¶31

(f102)cr

¶32

¶33

D..CSL,J Crl.P.No.t I l5 of )Dl

¶34

appearing for the petitioner to file his counter and as counter was not hled and as there was no representation despite of granting opportunity to the said counsel, the Court, basing on merits of the case, rendered the orders extending the period of detention. Furthermore, by the submission made by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, it is clear that there was no such necessity for moving an application for extension of period as the statute itself grants time of '18O' days for the process of completion of investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot take aid of Section 1.67 (21 Cr.P.C. seeking statutory bail.

¶35

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-P.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge at Bhadradri-Kothagudem, Bhadradri -Kothagudem District.

¶41