Dismissed

Estharla Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLP/6391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed by Estharla Kiran Kumar seeking bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of purchasing 3 kg of ganja, argued lack of personal seizure evidence against him. The Court rejected this, holding based on co-accused statements that he played a leading role in the crime, making it a fit case to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 of CrPC was dismissed. The accused was held to be in custody.

Estharla Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6391 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 . Estharla Kiran Kumar, S/o Bhanu Prakash, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o H.No.1-61/1 , Thattiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

.. Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶9

And

¶10

The State of Telangana, through P.S.Saroornagar, R.R.District, Rep. by Ppblic Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

.. RespondenUComplainant

¶12

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in connection with Crime No.140 of 2023 of Saroornagar Police Station. R.R.District.

¶13

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Sudhakar Babu Advocate for the Petitioner and Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondenl.

¶14

The Court made the following. OROER

¶15

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE M. LAXMAN}

¶16

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.63 910F 2023}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This petition^{is fited underSections 437 and 439 of} Criminat Procedure^{Code, 1973 (Cr'P'C) seekingto granl:regutar} bait to the^{petitioner,who is arrayed as accused No'1 in Crime} No.140 of^{7073 of Saroornagar PoticeStation' RachakonCa' The} offences atteged^{against the petitioner are underSections 8(c)} read with Section^{20(b)(ii)(B) of the NarcoticDrr-rgs and} Psychotropic^{SubstanceAct. 1985 (for short "NDPS Act")'}

¶19

Briefty the case^{of the prosecutionis thataccu:;ed No'1} promoted accused^{Nos.2to 4 to join in the ganjabusitless' As} per the instigation,^{accuseclNos'2 to 4 joined with accusedNo'1} and they att^{together went to Araku and purchased3 Kgs of} ganja o Rs.6,000/-per^{kg and came back to Hyderabadon} 18.02.2023 at^{about16.30hours' Later when the acclsedare} trying to sett^{the ganja tothe intended custo'ners in} DiLsukhnagar^{Area, a raid was conducted by potice'Orr search'} accused^{No.2 was found in possession of 'l 500 grams,accused} No.3 was found^{in possession of 1000grams and accu:;ed No'4} /

¶20

¶21

¶22

was found with 500^grams of ganja. On seeing the^potice accused No.'l fted away from the scene, but accused Nos.2 to 4 were caught hotd by the potice officiats.

¶23

The contention of [earned counset for the^petitioner is that the petitioner is nothing to do with the seizure and no seizure was effected from him and his invotvement was based on the confession of accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶24

Learned Additionat Public Prosecutor opposed the bait apptication.

¶25

The rightfut persons who can identify the person who fted away from the scene are co-accused. The co-accused statement shows that the person who fled away is the accused No.'l who know the vendor of ganja in Araku. Accused No. l took them to Araku and purchased 3 Kgs of ganja for sale. While they were conducting sale, the offence occurred. lt is the accused No.'l who cannot be equated with other accused and he had a prime and leading rote in the purchase and sale of ganja. ln view of the said a[tegations, it is not a fit case to grant bail to petitioner

¶26

accused No. L

¶27

)

¶28

Accordingty, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶29

Misceltaneous petitions, if any sha[[ stand ctosed.

¶30

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTAN-T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

(_-

SEC'IION OFFICER

To,

The V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Addl. Metropolitan^{Magislrate at} L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District

¶37

The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police^{Station, Rachakcnda.}

¶38

One CC to Sri V.Sudhakar Babu Advocate [OPUC].

¶39

Two CCs to Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^{State of Telangana.} lourl

¶40

Two CD Copies.

YIP PR \

HIGH COURT

MLJ

DATED:2010712023

ORDER

CRLP.No.6391 of 2023

3G S TA ;5.
J
a
a-
,J() 22 [lJB2m oz
x)
r- -.. . ^- a!"''
,2/

¶48

DISMISSING OF CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶49

.slc
*

Estharla Kiran Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Estharla Kiran Kumar 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

M.Raviteja Vs the State of Telangana

M. Raja Mani , Raja Mani and another Vs State of Telangana and another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Fazal Ahmed Shaik Vs The State of Telangana

Peddaveni Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Anudeep Gondra Vs The State of Telangana