Dismissed

Bobbili Sai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023CRLP/1159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed bail petitions of two accused involved in narcotic cases. Court held Section 50 NDPS Act did not apply as there was no personal search. Bail rejected due to involvement in multiple commercial cases and prior bail cancellation post charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions filed for bail under Section 439 CrPC dismissed; accused not entitled to bail.

Bobbili Sai Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYOTJREABIfE

¶3

OF TELANGANA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWo rHousAND AND rwerurf rine*i."^,.,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHTLLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶7

cRtMINAL PETITIO NNo:1 1s9 0F 2023

¶8

AND

¶9

CRIM INAL PETITION No. 1 166 of 2023

¶10

Crimin al Petition No.1 159 ot 2023

¶11

Between:

¶12

RSlS:l3,il"i'R;3,"X#;^{j,g"u1,,13811,ff} ilf; lf;.,Too#i.ii"^HNo13-23

¶13

AND

¶14

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶15

The state of rerangana, Rep., by its pubric prosecutor High court at Hyderabad

¶16

...RespondenUComplainant

¶17

Petition under Section- 431 & 43g of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoianir."Jr 6ror"no, of criminar petition, the High court mav be preased to.retease't-nl'bJii,,In""]io."rsed No t herein on bair in s'c No 86 ot 2o2z before the nonorrrorJl"n"io",'o,r,r,., and sessions Judoe al Khammam in Crime No.37312021 .f pS Xh"rnrn"L Rrrrt, Khammam Dist;;: o r o,.r,..toti"" i,.,il i";:?:,fl i::".',;iEH:: l;ru.:";^rli''i "iii "i "^Io

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon rrlaring the arguments of Sri AyESHA sABA, Advocate for the petitioner and the Roait]onat pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent

¶19

¶20

Criminal Petition ,lo 1166 of 2O23

¶21

Between:

¶22

G^unli Venkata I ao, S/o. AnlaRao, Aged about 29 years, 0:c. Driver, R/o.H.No. 12-8, Kuric:hecu rari Miil, NTR corony,^"Aodanki M &'(turi, i rarasnam oisirici.^'"

¶23

...^pet it^{ione,r/Accused} No.3

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of Tel, nr)ana, Rr-.p. by its public prosecutor, Higtr (.:ourt At Hyderabad.

¶26

... Resp o rrde nUCompla inant

¶27

Petition under S':c iot 437 & 439 of cr.p.c praying that ir the circumstances slated in the l,lernc'a1dum of Grounds of Criminil ietition, l,.re l.iigh Corrt ,ry be preased to .erea ;e the petitioner/Accused No.3 herein o r rrair ii s.c. No_ g6 of 2022 befort, the lcn'bre r ,Addr. District and sessions Ju<rr;,;, ;1 Khammam in crime.No.3z3r i/o'.>-1 ol pS Khammam Rurar, Khammam Disiiici, ro,. ilre aiLg"o offences Under S, c B(c) rtw 2O(b) of Narcotic Drugs ,nc e.y.notffi" Substances Ar;r.1^g8 i

¶28

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶29

i I I

¶30

: I

¶31

HON'BLE Dr. TIUSTICE CHILLAI(UR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PITITION No. Lt59 ot 2o23 AND CRIMINAL PETITTON No.1166 of2O23

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

l. Heard Sri Rizwan Akthar, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Ms.Ayesha Saba, learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the Respondent.

¶34

Criminal Petition No. 1159 of 2023 is filed on behalf of Accused No.I and Criminal petition No.ll66 of 2023 is filed on behalf of Accused No.3 in S.C.No.86 ot 2022 which is pending before the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam. Both the applications are filed under Section 439 Cr.p.C. with a request to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶35

3. The facts undisputed are as under:_

¶36

The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section g(c) read with 2O(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act. Accused No.l moved an application vide Crl.M.p.No.355 of 2022 and Accusgl No.3 moved an application vide crt.ft.p.No.+53 of 2022 beJdre the Court of J

¶37

¶38

Dr.6l-l C..P.Yo.1.159 oI2023 & t'1:^t.P.N ').1166 ol 202i

¶39

Additir n, Sessions Judge, Khammam, st,el<ing for grant⁽ I :ail. Both those applications u,ere ,{lowed and ,lo rse(luently, the petitioners were en..arged on bar l.

¶40

The S .ate moved separate applications bt:ii:rre this Court :hallenging the orders rendered t,v which ba;.ls u:re grarted. This Court dea_lt wittr ttrose applir:a ic,ns and through common ord(x- ditted 1207 2)2.2 in Crl.P.Nos.448l, 4482 & z.,t83r of 20.1.2. z llx.r'ed the Criminal Petitions and thereby cartce lk d the orders by which bails rvere gr.an:-ed. A<:cust d Nos.l & 3 now moved these Oriminal Petition , :;eeking, for bail.

¶41

4 'j'he ;ubrnission of the learned coun.;erl Ibr the petrtioncrs is tlrat thr'ugh bails were cancelled, 1.he accused are entirlerl o move the concerned Court for grzrnt of bail again.^'1 l-re s aid subrnission is wholly justifiat,lc. Indeed, the accr'lsoc have got such right to moro aaother applicatil)n f rr grant of baii even aJter the b;ril grarted earlier u as c rncellecl either by the High Court r:,r l;y the trial Cou :'t.

¶42

-1

¶43

ot.6u Crl.P.No.r159 ol208 & C .P.No.r166 oJ 2023

¶44

¶45

Arguing in respect of the merits of the case, Iearned counsel for the petitioners submits ttrat the procedure required to be followed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act while search and seizure of the contraband is not followed. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the contents of Section 5O of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Also, learned counsel based his submission on the decision rendered by the Honb1e Apex Court in the case between STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PARMAI{AND AND ANOTHERT

¶46

The facts of the present case a-re that, while the SubInspector of Police, Khammam (Rural), along with his staff, was conducting vehicle checking, he found two^vehicles proceeding i.e. Mahindra Bolero vehicle and an Ashoka Leyland Trolley and those two vehicles were^stoppedand were searched and in those vehicles, police found huge quantity of Garrj a kept in secret boxes. Thus, as per the version of the prosecution, the vehicles^{were searched and} Ganja was seizrd. In the decision that^{is relied uponby}

¶47

r120ta; 5 supreme court cases 345

¶48

¶49

Dr.csLt Ctt-,, ryo.1.159 ol 2O2i & ta,l.P.N).1166 oJ 2023

¶50

the learne 1 .orrns,:l for the^{petitionerwhic:r. is referred}

¶51

supra. the lourt at Para t5^{of the orderheld a.s under:-}

¶52

'1:;. Ti:tus, if mereLy a bag carried by a^pterson is searche 7 utithottt there being ang searclt^{oJ' his} persoil, ijectiort 50 of the Narcotic Dr,'cts and no PsE,chot'opic S'ubstances Act will t'ale apltlicat on. Bttt if the bag carried by' hirt^is searclte I and hi:; person is also search.ed,^{Ser:tion 50} of the I arcotic L)rugs and Psgchotropic^Sub:;ta;zces Act uttll 16.v11 5lpptlication. In this case, Resg:ondent¹ Partna.nr'nd's bag was searched. From tl.e bag, opium u t:; recouered. His personal search 'tt'zs also cani ecl crtt. Fersonal search of Resporu:lent 2 Surr.Ljnta ruos rzls;o conducted. Therefore, in tlrc tight of the I Lct.grnents oI this Court mentioned in tte prec'eciin 7 paraqraphs, Section 50 oJ the liarr:otic Drug s a u.t Psgclnotropic Substances Acl u)t't.l haue app iicctti tn."

¶53

7 . Thus, -he Hon'ble Apex Court had made it cle,ar that in case sear ch rs not conducted on person, S,:c:tiorr 5O of the Nar,:;o lic [)rugs rlnd Psychotropic Substan:r:s l\ct will have nc, ap1 li,:ation .^'l'herefore, this Court is o' the view that the d,--c sion refcrred to by^{the learnerl} coun:;el for the petitiont rs⁽ lrrnot ard the petitioners for^gettirr5: etrlarqed

¶54

¶55

or,6U Ctl.P-No.1199 ol2023 & Ctl.P,No,1165 oI 2023

¶56

I I

¶57

on bail. lrarned counsel for the petitioners also stated that there is inordinate delay in collecting the samples ald there is further delay of '1 1'days in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.

¶58

8- In reply to the said submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that by the date of Iiling of the application for cancellation of bail, charge sheet had been laid and the contents of charge sheet were considered by this Court while rendering order by which bail was cancelled ald therefore, such ground cannot be agitated again. lrarned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that the charge sheet had been fiIed prior to the application filed for cancellation of bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged before this Court while dealing with the application for cancellation of barl cannot again be taken into consideration. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no specific mention in the common order rendered by this Court that the contents of the charge sheet are perused, even such a submission cannot be taken into consideration

¶59

¶60

Dr.6LJ crl F.tto.1159 ol2023^& Ul P-N.'.1166 ol 2023

¶61

as wh(:n th : material^{papers are placed before this Court,} they u'ou ld normally be^{perused and allsen<e of specific} mentiorl rn th.at regtrrd^{by the Court cannotbe l.ernred that} the dor:uInt nts wer(r not^{perused'That ap:rrt the learned} Additional .lblic Prosecutor^{states that ,\ccusr:rlIr'o. 1 i'e',} the pe1.iti,:r :r in^{Crt.P.No.l 159 of 2023 ts involvecl in five} criminal ca;es wherein^{in all thosecases,tlre: pr:titioner} was for-tnrl rtrnsporting^{commercialquan tity ol pr'rhibited} material u rcier th,: Narcotic^{Drugs and)sychotropic} Substanc,:s Act. Leurned^{AdditionalPubhcPrc sr:cutoralso} stated t.ha I Accused No.3^{i.e., th,:po:itio:Ier in} Crl.P.N,:r.1 lr '6 ol 2O23^{is also ir-rvolve d in frve otlrt:r c:riminal} cases ir1 rvh Lch four cases^are in^{respect of tr:lrr sportation} of comrnerc aJ quantity' of^{contraband under l-l e l{arcotic} Drugs and Psychotr:opic^{SubstalcesAct antl on: isin} respect of n rn^{-comnrercialquantity. The caseir,, blrdly hit} by Sectior-r 3'l of the Narcotic^{Drugs and ['s',rch otropic} Substarces {<:t. keLrned^{counsel failed to stat€: as to how} the petr tion rrs are entitled lor bail rvhen tttr:re is^no materia on record to sho\' that the tu,in ::onditions mentioned tl .erern are not applicable.