Dismissed

Ammi reddy Venkat Laxmi v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Dec 2024CRLP/13239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition seeking bail under Section 480 and 483 of B.N.S.S., the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition. Despite procedural grievances raised by the petitioner regarding seizure and sample collection, the Court held that the offence involving a commercial quantity of ganja precluded bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially given the opponent's objection.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 13239 of 2024 for enlargement on bail is dismissed.

Ammi reddy Venkat Laxmi Vs The state of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^338s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13239 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ammi reddy Venkat Laxmi, Wo, Late Ramana, Age 37 Years, Occ Care Taker R/o, 24112, Janakipuram, Rolugunta, Anakapally, District, Andhra Pradesh state

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 480 & 483 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to consider the case of the^petitioner and enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime no. 282 of 2O24, of PS Maheshwaram pending on the file of Hon'ble lst Addl. District and Sessions Judge Cum Designated court for the trial of offences under NDPS Act, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^argumentsof Sri DUWURI SURYA NARAYANA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and^the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: OROER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. .,USTICEK. SUJA.ITA}

¶17

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.13239of20124}

¶18

OR.DER:

¶19

Seeking the^{Court to enlargethe petitioner who is} arrayed as^{accusedNo.2 inCrime No'282 of 2024 of} Maheshwaram^{Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate'} on bail, the^{presentCriminalPetition is hled'}

¶20

2- The brief facts^{of the case are that ot 29 'O7'2024} '^t}re Sub-lnspector^{of Maheswaram Police Stationreceivedcredible} information about^{two individuals possessingapproximately} 5O.42O^{grams of ganja. The ofhcerintercepted and seized the} contraband,^{documentingthe processthrough a Panchnama} at Saraswathiguda^{Gate onSrisailam Highway' Upon} returning to^{the police station, the SHO registered a case vide} CrimeNo.282of2Cl24underSection2o(bXii)(c)oftheNDPS Act, 1985.^{The petitioner was subsequently producedbefore} t]relearnedxxvllAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrateon 3O.O7 .2024,^{andrernandedto judicialcustody' where they} have remained^since.

¶21

¶22

¶23

sKsr, (]tl-P-No-13239 of 2024

¶24

--Lleard Sri D. Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing pn behaii the petitioner as well as Sri Syed yasan Manoon, learned Additionat Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizing officer failed to comply with the mand,atory prrtvisions of Sections 41 ald 42 (21 of the NDpS Act, rendering the search rllegal and that the panchanama rcveals that the seized material was not sealed on the spc,t. He further submitted that the search team did not include a woman constable or pancha, despite the involvement of a female accused, ald this omission was not reflected in the panchanama. The seizing Officer also failerl to follow the procedure under Section SO of the NDpS Act.

¶26

[rarned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay in drawing samples before the Magistrate, violating the mandate of Section 52A of the. NDpS Act as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further contended that the procedure of the investigating agenc). was oot in accordance with the law,. and the petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner was never in conscious possession

¶27

¶28

SKS'J CrI.P.f,o.13239 of2O24

¶29

of the contraband and is innocent. Given the doubtful^and untrustworthy evidence collected by the investigating^agency, the counsel requests the Court to grant bail to^{the petitioner.}

¶30

On the other hand, learned Additional^{Public Prosecutor} opposed the submissions made by the^{learned counselfor the} petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler.^He further submitted that the investigation is in^{progressand if} the petitioner is released on bai[, at this^{stage,she may} tarnper with the evidence and may threaten^{the witnesses and} further, she is involved in other three crimes.^Hence,he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal^petition.

¶31

''1. This Court, considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and reviewing the record, it^{is notedthat the} contention of the petitioner that the^{case is false, fictitious,} and fabricated, the case was registered^{without following the} due procedure and there is a delay^{in collectingthe samples.} However, the Additional Public^{Prosecutor opposes bail citing} commercial quantity approximately^{5O.42O grams of ganja} and the involvement of the^{petitionerin other three cases'At} this stage, it is pertinent to^{noteSection 37 of the NDPS Act,} which reads as under:

¶32

¶33

sKs,J Crl.P.No.13239 of2024

¶34

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - - (11 Notwithstanding anything contained irr tbe Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (2 of l9',r4),--(al er.ery offence punishable undef this Act shall be cogrrizable;

¶35

(b) no person accused of al offence punishtrble for l[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his ou,n bond unless--

¶36

(i) the Rrblic Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶37

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposcs the application, the court is satisfied that th€rrc are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offeoce and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶38

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741 or any other taw for the time being in force on graating of bail-"

¶39

In view thereof, Section 37 of ttre NDpS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities b,: non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the eiccused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Given the serious allegations and pending cases again st the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that :onditiorls for

¶40

¶41

sKs.r Crl.P.Xo.13239^{of 2x)24}

¶42

¶43

granting bail^{underSection37 are met' Therefore'the} criminal^{petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be} dismissed.

¶44

Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petitionis dismissed'}

¶45

Miscellaneous^{applications,if any pending'shall stand}

¶46

closed.

¶47

sd/- v. KAVIT^HA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

S CTION^OFFICER

To,

The^I Additional^{Districtand sessionsJudgecum Designated court for} the trial^{of offences ,noei't't-opS Act' Ranga ReddyDistrict'at L'B'Nagar'}

¶52

The Junior^{Civil Judge cumXVll AdditionaiMetropolitan Magistrate} Cvberabad^{At Maheshwaram'}

¶53

a i'tt"ft;'^{ri"r.. otti""'"rt'r aheshwaram P-oliceStation'Rachakonda'} ;. d; cEi;^{snr ouwunrbuRYANARAYANA'Advocate[oPucl} 5. Two CCs^{to Public ptott"'t*'High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad[OUTI

¶54

Two CD^CoPies.

AR/gh

fa-

-_<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:O3l12tZO24

ORDER

CRLP.No.13239 ot 2024

¶62

., i r"\i; 1-r
//
-,
ta<br>. tr.i5
t--r
t,i '
-'l<br>l.. -,
\ ':
,;,

¶63

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.

¶64

qcoP(€a W- (Ja',

Ammi reddy Venkat Laxmi v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammi reddy Venkat Laxmi 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

B. Krishna Vs Guduguntla Kotaiah

Goutham Vs K.Rajender Goud

Md. Shakeel Khan Vs Md. Ghouse

Kaneez E Abida Begum Vs Anjuman E Moinul Akwan Ashfia Kingdom

Hina Kausar, Vs Laxmamma

Pathlavath Shankar Vs The State of Telangana