Dismissed

Patel Rajeshwar Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRLP/1416/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed no offence and that the case was false. The public prosecutor stated the petitioner supplied ganja and had planned a police trap. The court found a prima facie case and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The request for anticipatory bail cannot be honoured at this stage as the investigation is pending and there is a prima facie case.

Patel Rajeshwar Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32oe ]

¶2

I i I i I I I I I ,I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO:^{1416 OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Patel Raieshwar Reddy, S/o. Gajapathi Reddy,

¶10

...'ETIT'ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RES'.NDENT

¶14

Petition under Section⁴³⁸ of^{Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition, the High courtmay be} pleased to direct the S.H.O., of Excise Station,^{Kosgi,NarayanapetDistrict,} Telangana state, to release^{the Petittoner on Bail in event of his arrestin} connection with COR.No.^{OG of 2O23 of Excise Station,Kosgi,Narayanapet} District, Telangana State.

¶15

This Petition coming on for^{hearing' uponperusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof Dr CHALLA} sRlNlvAS REDDY, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and of the AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf^{of the RespondentNo.1 and of None Appeared for the} Respondent No.2.

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

HON' lL,E Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIIIrILI\THA

¶18

)RIMINAL PETITION No. 1416 of itO23

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

I . Hear< I)r.Cha-l[a Srininvasa .Reddy, lear rr i counsel for the petitic re r as u.ell as the iearner I Acl clitio:ral Public Prosecutor ,r,ho is representing the Responden - iitate.

¶21

Seeki rg pre-arrest bail, this Crimin;rl pe^jl.ion is filed on behalf of t Lr: ps1i1i...r, u,ho is arrayed as ,{cr us:d No.1 1n C.O.R.No.6 d'2023 of Prohibition and Ext.isr: S1i,,tion. Kosgi.

¶22

Statir g1 tl-rat tl-re petitioner. u.ho i., .r l,i.ren:an and a Gor.ernmer t Employee, has not com,niite I an1. offence whatsoever lezrned counsel for the petition€r' stzLtes that a false case is loisted against the petitioner :rnd therefore, alrticipator bail ma1, be granted.

¶23

4 . Contr rclicting the said submission , lear'::red Additional Public pros:cutor submits that it is the petiti,rr:er^."r,ho is the prime accu ied and the supplier of Ganja. Learned Additional Public Pros :cutor states that the petitioner su5r1>1ied Ganja to Accused Nr s.2 & 3 zrnd the said ganja of lKg ilr)O grams was seized fron the possession of Accused Nos.2 {lr 3. Learned Additional^)urblic Prosecutor also states^r hat t It: petitioner is

¶24

¶25

or.CSrl Crl.P.No.1415 ol 2023

¶26

having disputes rega-rding landed^property with one^Bal Reddy and therefore, the petitioner engaged^{Accused No.4 to} throw the bag containing Ganja into the^premises of the^said Bal Reddy so that he would be taken into custody by^police and accordingly, Accused No.4 had thrown^{the bag containing} dry ganja into the^{premises of} the^{said Bal Reddy.However,} Accused No.4 was caught hold by the inmates^{of the said} house and he was handed over to Police and^{Poiice recdrded} his statement and Accused^No.4 had clearly^{stated that on} the instructions of the petitioner, he^{had thrown the bag} containing ganja into the^premises of Bal^{Reddy. karned} Additional Public Prosecutor a-lso states that^{the investigation} is still pending. Record discloses^pima facie^{case against the} petitioner. Also, the submission of the learned^Additional Public Prosecutor, as earlier^{stated, is that the investigation is} still pending ald the place from^{which the petitioner is} procuring Ganja is yet to be investigated.

¶27

Having considered these factors, this^{Court is of the} view that the request of the^{petitioner cannotbe honouredat} this stage.

¶28

¶29

DT.CSL,J :1.P.No 1415 of 2023

¶30

¶31

ResLrltar t[.2, the Criminal petition is dism;ss:r.[

¶32

//TRUE COPY'

¶33

Sd/-(l.PRl\VEEN KUMAR ASS I SJ.tAT\ T. REGISTRAR ( rL'

¶34

SiEC'IION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

The Station H^,u:;e Officer, Excise Station, Kosgi, Narayarrpet t)istrict (TS) 2. One CC to Sr Clralla Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC

¶37

Two CCs to tt ) I)ublic Prosecutor, High Cou( for the Stat: of^--elangana at Hyderabad (C .11')

¶38

Two CD Copir s

${a

.44fir. .-.-rrrir

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.1416 ot 2(²³

:1| \E STA} 6
)
) 2 4 tlAR ?ua
i
ir-
. .'t" .

¶47

CRL.P. lS DISMISS :Er.

Patel Rajeshwar Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patel Rajeshwar Reddy 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

Abdul Mujahad Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Naralachetty Madhavi Laxmi Vs State of Telangana

Koluguri Sandeep Sagar Vs the State of Telangana

C. Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Shervayyagari Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Kusuma Sharath , Sharath Babu Vs The State of Telangana