Dismissed

Nekkella Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023CRLP/6489/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions for bail and quashing of recovery proceedings in a drug case. The court held that procedural irregularities in search and absence of a warrant do not vitiate the recovery of drugs when material prejudice cannot be demonstrated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions CRLP Nos. 6489 and 6566 of 2023 dismissed; recovery of 7kgs ganja deemed valid.

Nekkella Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO(S): 6489 AN D 6566 0F 2023

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6489 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nekkella Ramesh, S/o. Rambabu, Age. 31 years, Occ. Mestri, permanent R/o. l;l N9 3-12, Main Road, Devipatnam mandalam, lndukuru, lndukuru, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh- 533266

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Through P. S., Kukatpally.

¶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 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 on bail in the Crime No. 594 ol 2023, of P.S. Kukatpally on the file of the Court of the Hon,ble Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally Cyberabad.

¶14

CRIM]NAL PETITION NO: 6566 OF 2023

¶15

Between:

¶16

Joga Bhavani, Wo. Appanna, Age.30 years, Occ. Movie Artist, Rl/o. Flat No.1107, P-Block, Rainbow Vista, Kukatpall y,H yderabad-72.

¶17

...Petitioner/Accused No. 1

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through P.S., Kukatpalty.

¶20

petition under section 217 o ,^^ ''Respondent pravns'[ha'[ n'[he ru;:,,'ffi,#l;::":;';^::J'"' :l: cr me No 5e4 0f ,:" ffil:'fi:il:ijil::i'i'l i"I ilT" ill trle of the court of the Hon'bre XII Additionar Metroprrritan ,r"",,",^^{'1,^i:"} :T cyberabad. Magistrate' Medchal-Malk:ajgiri District at Kukatpally,

¶21

These petitions con on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of both tnu cri,'n sri Naseshwar -"" ;,,;,i:1:::T:ir:T"upon^hearins the arsuments of Additional Pubric prose:utor on beharf of the Respond;: o"tn the cases and the

¶22

The Court made the folrowing: COMMON ORDER

¶23

¶24

II i I I

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTTCE /r^. LAXMAN

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos .6489 and 6566 OF 2023

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

These petitions are fited under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.p.C) seeking to grant regutar bait to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.594 of Z0Z3 of Kukatpatty potice Station, Cyberabad. The offences atteged against the petitioners are under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶29

As the Crime number in both the crimina[ petitions is one and the same and the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.594 of 2073, both the criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

¶30

The sum and substance of case of the prosecution is that on prior information, the potice concerned went to the ftat of accused and attegedty found the accused with two bags and the bags contained gunja and such gunja was recovered under the cover of panchanama.

."n

)

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ertry and search were done in the cremises during the sunset and sunrise. lt is atso his case that Accused No.1 who is lady and se arch operations are conducted witl-rout any women constabte. Therefore, there is non-comptiance of the procedure under NDPS Act which rs mandatory required to be fottowed.

¶35

¶36

¶37

Learne<l Additionat^pubtic prosecutor op:osed the bait apptication b)r contending that there was no occasion to search the premises. The officers on prior information wertt to the ftat and the offici:rs found accused with 2 bags and that bags were containing garja. Therefore, there was no occaston to enter and search the premises. Therefore, the r,3quirement of assigning reason or obtain prior warrant for sr:arch was not mandatory reclu'irement.

¶38

As seen from the investigation done by t.he potice, on prior information, the officers went to the ftat.' The search proceedings sl'ow that there was no search of the premises and there is entry nto the ftat and on entry, they found the accused with two bags and 2bags were containing dry ganja of 7kgs. Learned coun:,eI for the petitioner contended that Section

¶39

ry/

¶40

¶41

42(1)(d) shows that entry and search atso requires the procedure under Section 42 has to be fottowed. Admittedty, search in the present case was conducted during the sunset and .sunrise^{and the law requiresthat searchwarrantis required} for search warrant and the proviso says that if time is required for obtaining warrant, there is a chance for conceatment of evidence or facitity for the escape of an offender. The officer may enter and search by assigning the reasons.

¶42

ln the present case conspicuously there is no reason for dispensing with the requirement of obtaining warrant. However, the authorities have fottowed search of the persons by fottowing the conditions contemplated under Section 50 of NDpS Act by making search in the presence of Gazetted Officer in the choice of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the procedural viotations would not make discarding the materiat recovered out of such improper search operations. The search in viotation of procedures gives occasion for the accused to resist such improper search and it can also use his private defence to prevent such ittegal act. The evidence cannot be discarded, simpty because such proceedings cannot be invatid for

¶43

¶44

¶45

procedural nc)ncomptiance. Therefore, such a ground cannot make the sea'ch process vitiated. ln the present case 7 Kg of ganja was recovered from the accused, which contained in two bags and the accused faited to demonstrate how viotations prejudice therr rights at this state. When there is recovery of ganja though result of such improper search, the same cannot be discarded.

¶46

Accordingty, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶47

Miscettaneous cetitions, if any shatt stand ctosed.

¶48

,TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

r--/

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Xll Additionar Junior. ovil Judge-cum-Xil Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchat-Malkajgiri Districiitkul"ipjriy.''

¶54

2 The Station House Officer, Kukatpally police,station, Cyberabad.

¶55

J One CC to Sri. Nageshwar Rao pujari Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

YJP '

rl ll i 1 i I

HIGH COURT

DATED:26107,t2023

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos.6489 & 6566 of 2021

¶63

/l 4. 1 \1'; S l4I ('
)q
co 1 r)
t

¶64

DISMISSING OF THE CRL.ps

¶65

Nv0

Nekkella Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nekkella Ramesh 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

Kura Subhadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana

Cheekatimalla Veerender, Vs The State of Telangna

Vaidhyanath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Perala Hari Hara Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Pachamatla Sai Revanth Varma, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathlavath Seetharam Vs The State of Telangana