Dismissed

Allanki ( or Ellanki )Srikanth or Yashwanth Reddy v. Union of India

Telangana HC6 Feb 2023CRLP/11881/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed two criminal petitions seeking regular bail for accused persons involved in manufacturing and trafficking Alprazolam. Finding the allegations grave and the trial lengthy, the Court held that delay alone or the rigors of the NDPS Act did not justify granting bail, emphasizing societal welfare over individual liberty in such cases.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Petitions No. 1188/1 of 2022 and No. 427 of 2023 were dismissed.

Allanki ( or Ellanki )Srikanth or Yashwanth Reddy Vs… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1188 1 0F 2022 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO:427 OF 2023

¶7

LRI^. trce d L1-

¶8

etween:

¶9

Allanki ( or Ellanki )Srikanth or Yashwanth Reddy, S/o Late Bikashapathi, age 30, Occ.Business, HNo.^{3-83, Gummadidala(V)} Gummadidala Mandala Sanga Reddy District,^Telengana -⁵⁰²³¹³

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Through, lntelligence Officer^{NarcoticsControlBureau} Hyderabad su-b Zone

¶13

...RES'.NDENT/..M'LA.NANT

¶14

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 regular^bail to^the applicant/accused in the interest of^justice

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri. C'} SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate for the^{Petitioners and the Public} Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent^{No. and of Sri B. NARSIMHA} SARMA, Advocale for the Respondent No.¹

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 427 OF 2023

¶17

Between:

¶18

Kampati Pllani KumaR, S/o Late K.^{Venkate;hwarlu} Age.⁵⁵ years, Oc:. Business, R/o 6-3-1 185/90/A B.S. Maktha Hanuman lemple, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

¶19

...PETITIO NER/ACC USED

¶20

AND

¶21

Union of In< ia, through lntelligence Officer,^{Narcolics Control} Bureau, Hy, lerabad Sub-Zone.

¶22

...RESPONDENT/C OMP LAI NANTS

¶23

Petition u rder Section 437& 439 of Cr.P.C^praf ing thatⁱⁿ the circumstanc=s stated in the Memorandum^<>1' Grounds^of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^{pleased lo ernlargethe} petitioner/Accust d No.5 on bail in SC 240 of 202:l in NCB F.No. 4Bl1l1Ol2O21lNCB/Sub-Zone/HYD under section seclion^22(c), 27A,28, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Dated.^{1,1115-08-2021in} the event of the z rrest of the Petitioner/Accused^{No li}

¶24

This Petit on coming on for hearing,upor^{perusing the} Memorandum of 3rounds of Criminal Petition^{and u;lc,n hearing the} arguments of Sri RADHIKA PALLA ,Advocate for the^{Petitioner and} of Sri J.K. AJA\ KLJIVAR REP SRl. B.^{NARASIIVI}'|A SHARIVA,} Advocate for the Lespondent No.¹

¶25

The Court made he following: COMMON ORDER

¶26

7 /

¶27

HON'BLE DT.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR^SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11681^of2Q22 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 427^{of 2023}

¶28

COMMON ORDER:

¶29

Criminal Petition No. 11881 of^{2022 is filed on behalf} of Accused No.3 and Criminal Petition^{No.427of 2023 is} frled on behalf of Accused No'S in NCBF.No48/ | / lO I 2O2l /NCB/Sub-zone/Hyderabad,^under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,^{for grant of post-arrest bail.}

¶30

Heard Sri A.K.Sahoo, learned^{counselwho argued on} behatf of Sri C.srinivasa^{Reddy, learnedcounsel on record} for the petitioner/Accused^{No.3 inCriminal Petition} No. 11881 of 2022, Smt.P.Radhika^{Sharma,learned} counsel on record for the^{petitioner/Accused No.S in} Criminal Petition No.427^{of 2023 and Sri K.Ajay Kumar} who represented Sri B.Narasimha^{Sharma, learned counsel} on record for the respondent-^{Narcotics Control Bureau} (NCB). Also perused the contents^{of the counters filed.}

¶31

Making their submission,^{learned counsel for the} petitioners in both the criminal^{petitionsjointly contended} that the petitioners^{are in judicialcustody since more than}

¶32

¶33

DT.CSL,J (),.P.NL.llEEl of2022 ,Qt]rLP.No.427 of 2023

¶34

a year and trey a-re facing tria-l. Both the lcattt=d counsel states thzrt t re trial has^just commenced artd r';':amination of PW 1 is ccmpleted in-part. But, as man) as, seventeen (17) u,itness( s were cited by the prosecuting att:nc1/ and it would ta-l<e considerable time for .*46i11tir)r: of those witnesses ar d for pronouncement of judgmt n t emd the petitioners h rve to languish in judicial custodv lill then in case they a-r( not enlarged on bail ald therefort:, they may be enlarged cn bail.

¶35

Learnec counsel appearing for the petitior r:.r/,,4.ccused No.3 in Crl.I .No.1188 1 of 2022 browght to the: notice of this Court th: order rendered in Crl.P.No.3255 r>: 2022 (by Sri Justice K.Surender) where the learned Ju<[a;e o.irected the trial Cou:t to complete the process of tr:a; within a period of t'r.,"'o months and failure on part of the p,r'osr:cution to compiy wi -h the direction of completion of 1.rror:ess of trial within tl rose two months, liberty was grarLled to the petitioners tt erein to move an application for l.rail. The said order wz s rendered on 22.04.2022. Refer:'ing to the said order, Ier rrned counsels for the petitioners rstatr:s that

¶36

¶37

¶38

Dt-csLJ CrLP.No.I lSEl of2022 &CrLP.No.l27 of 2021

¶39

despite of the said order, only one^{witness is exarnined till} now that too in-part.

¶40

In reply to the submissions made and projecting his own version, learned counsel for the respondent states that there is no fault on part of the respondent in producing witnesses and indeed, the first witness hails from Guj arat and therefore, it took time for getting the summons served upon him and recording of his evidence and all other witnesses hail from the State of Telangana and therefore, it may not take much time to conclude the trial. Learned counsel further submits that having regard to^the sensitiveness of the case, the request of the^{petitionersfor} enlargement of bail should be disallowed.

¶41

The matrix of the case as could be^perceived through the contents of the charge .sheet is that the^{accused were} well organized and established^gang for^financing, manufacturing and trafficking Alprazolam, a^psychotropic substance. lgram of Alprazolam^{is enoughto prepare100} liters of spurious toddy. The^{contrabandseized in this} case is 3.25Kgs of^{Alprazolamwhichis more than 32 times}

¶42

¶43

Dr.CSL,l t]rl.P.N,t. I I E8 I of²⁰²² &CtLP.No.427 of2023

¶44

of the com alercial quantity of Alprazolam as^{per the} provisions )f the Narcotic Drugs and F's;ycJrotropic Substances Act. The said quantity is^poten t enough^to destroy tl.re amilies and lives of lakhs of^people .^lrurther, Nordazepam another significant psychotropi<^sutrstance, has been det:cted in the suspected material wtich is seized from M/s.SLree Karthikeya Life Sciences.^{No rciazr:pam is} another ps''chotropic substance and its^commercial quantity is 510 grams. Accused Nos.6, 2 & 3(r,t:titioner in Crl.P.No.1 18 ll of 20221 are habituated ltlprazolam traffickers. l)uring December 2020, Accused llc,.2 met^his old boss r.e. Accused No. 1 and discussed^wit h regard to manufacturirtg of Alprazolam. Accused No.1, rrho, having good pharrnzc,y experience, started M/s.Shree i(arthikeya Life Science, i with Accused No.4 is also t a'rin,g good pharmacy ex rerience. Accused No.3 (petitioner irL Crl.P.No. 1188 1 of 2lt22l used to purchase ranr m€,t-r:rial from M/s.Narmadir Chemicals based on the directions of his elder brother Accused No.6 and used to deliver tl'Le same to Accused No. [. Accused No.1, with the assistance of Accused No.4 and Accused No.5 (petitioner in^():l .P.No.427

¶45

¶46

,r'

¶47

Dr-CSL,J CtLP.No.I l88I o12022 &.CrLP.No.427 of 2023

¶48

/i' /'

¶49

of 2023l. manufactured Alprazolam and supplied the same to Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 (petitioner ln Crl.P.No. 1 1881 of 20221 based on the directions of Accused No.6. All the three used to sell the same to the toddy shops. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.11881 of 20221 and Accused No.S (petitioner in Crl.P.No.427 of 2023) were apprehended while they were carr5ring 3.2 Kgs of Alprazolam and cash of Rs.12,75,000/-. It led to the burst of Clandestine Laboratory used for manufacturing Alprazolam at M/s.Shree Karthikeya Life Sciences. The prosecuting agency analyzed more than 26,000 tower locations and established the connection between a]l the accused and their dealings in manufacturing and selling of Alprazolam.

¶50

While making her submission, Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.427 of 2023, referring to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in VAKIL PRASAD SINGH Vs.STATE OF BIHAR^I contended that bail is a right and jail is an exception. She stressed on Article 2l of tl:.e Constitution of India by

¶51

'lzqpelstcc^ess

¶52

¶53

DrC.sL,l t:tt.P.No.l l88l of 2022 & atlP.No.l27 of202l

¶54

contending t hat the life and liberty of the indivr<lual has to get much si6 nificance artd it cannot be lost du: to Celay in trial. Learr.ed counsel referring to the dect.s.Lon of the Hon'ble Ape> Court in Maneka Gand.hi Vs.Utt't.rtrr- ctf Ind.ia & Anrz also states that the procedure establ i,s hecl under law should^.le just, fair and reasonable. She t;tal.es that delay in tria should not put accused behind ltie bars for longer period .

¶55

Apprec iation goes to the submission :Lrus made. However, thir; Court is of the view that when t--lt: liberty of the individua I vis-a-vis welfare of the society ir; r:onrpared, welfare of th< society has to be given due pronri.rence. In the case on h and, it is clearly indicated in the ch;arge sheet that the p,:titioners are involved in marLufa:turing prohibited drrg-Alprazolam and huge qualtity c,I 3.25 Kgs of Alprazolam was seized from thea possession Alsro, it is indicated thz t 1 gram of Alprazolam along^rri16 o11r". material is er Lough to manufacture 100 liters rl sp,urious toddy. Such >eing the gravity of the allegations this Court ln is of the op nion that only because there i s, de lay

' 1rsrs1^{r scc zaa}

i,t

Dr-CSL,t OLP.No.l18E1of2022 &CrLP,No.427 of2023

¶60

conclusion of trial proceedings, the petitioners cannot be enlarged on bail on ttre sole ground. AIso, the rigor of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be diluted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioners cannot be honoured.

¶61

9" Resultaltly, both the Criminal Petitions stands dismissed.

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶63

closed.

¶64

Sd/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Cb

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, cyberabad-cum-lAddl'Dist &} sessions Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar'}

¶69

z. irre iniettiqente Oticir,^{NC6, Hyderabad' Sub-zone, HyderabadDist} 5. fne Srp"iintendent,^{CherlapallyCentral Prisons, cherlapally'Ranga} Reddv District

¶70

a r'rieXxiAOoi. Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate,Medchal[OPUC]} ^- 5. oie'Cd to^{snt. c. sRlNlvASAREoov, Advocate[oP.u-c]} 6. on" cb-to^{na/s. P. RADHIKA SHARMA,Advocate} LqP-g.c^l i. on; cc io Snt.^{B NARASIMHA sARMA Advocate[oPUCl}

¶71