Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Annamaneni Surya

Telangana HC15 Dec 2025CRLP/10993/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's petition to cancel bail granted to an accused in an NDPS case. The prosecution alleged the trial court erroneously stated no contraband was seized. The trial court had since corrected this clerical error, admitting seizure. The High Court held the bail was valid and could not be cancelled merely for a corrected clerical mistake.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Telangana Vs Annamaneni Surya — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10993 OF 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Telangana, through the Station House Officer, Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad^- 500066.

¶9

...PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

Annamaneni Surya, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, aged about 34^years, Occ- Business, Rt/o. Flat No.504, Sun Yoga Flora Apa(ment, Gangasthan Dhulapally. Kompally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, N/o. H.No.2-8-1 1, Mukarampura, Karimnagar District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1

¶13

Petition under Section 483 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent/A-1 vide Orders dated 7.8.2025 passed by the Honble Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy Districl at L.B.Nagar, ln Crl.M.P.No.164912025ⁱⁿ Cr.No.212025.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. N. Niranjan Reddy(Sr. Counsel) Representing Sri. V. Rajender Rao Advocate^on behalf of the Sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TEL 1NGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S[ JANA

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10993 of 2(t: ;5

¶19

DATE:15.12.2O25

¶20

Betrpeen:

¶21

The State of Telangana Through the Station House Officer, Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TG Anti Narcotic Bureau, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Public prosecutor, High Court for the Sate of Telangana, Hyderabad - 500066

¶22

Petitioner^/ ?espondent

¶23

AND

¶24

Annamaneni Surya

¶25

Respond: tt/Accused No. 1

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Criminal^petition is filed by the prosec, ion seeking canceilation of the bail granted to the respondent/ a :cused No. 1 by order dated 07.08.2O25 in Crl.M.p.No. t649 of I 025 passed by the learned XIII Additional District and Ses s ons Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (trial Court)_

¶28

¶29

Heard learned^{Additional Public Prosecution representing} the petitioner -^{State and learned counselfor the respondent-} accused No.2

¶30

The contention of^{the learned Additional Public Prosecutor} is that while^{grantingbail to accused No' 1, the trial Court} observed in^{paragraphNo.8of its order dated 07'O8'2025that} no contraband^{was seizedfrom the possessionof accused No l} and that there^{were no specihcallegations againsthim to attract} the ingredients of^{the offencespunishable under Sections8(c)} read with 27^{arrd' 29 of the NDPS Act and was further observed} that the name of^{accusedNo. 1 was included only on the basis of} the confession of^{other accused.}

¶31

The learned Additional^{PublicProsecutor further} submitted that^{accused No.1 was arrested on 07 'O7 2025 'The} petitioner was the driver^{of the TATAScorpio vehicle bearingNo'} TSO8JM2O22, and upon^{search,the petitionerwas found in} possession of 3.2^{grams of OG Weed Ganja and 1'60 grams of} Ecstasy Pills kept^{in the dickey of the car,as well as 10 gramsof} cocaine concealed^{in a woman's right-leg chappalplaced inside} a cardboard box.^{Without properly consideringthis material,the} trial Court erroneously^{observed that no contraband was seized}

¶32

¶33

)

¶34

from accused No.1 and that his arrest was basc< only on the confessional statements of co-accused and grant i 1 bail to the accused No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, th( prosecution seeks cancella tion oI bail.

¶35

On the other hand, learned coun s 11 lor the respondent/ accused No. 1 submitted that the obsr: vation of the trial Court was only a clerical mistake and that tl c trial Court had earlier granted bail to accused Nos. 14 and 19 on 23.07.2025, and subsequently granted bail to ar:r.r sed No.1 on 07 .O8.2O25. The error in paragraph No.8 of t t- : order was corrected by the triai Court itself by its order datrrr 12.1 1.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.I (,. 9 of 2025 in Crime No.2 of 2025- In paragraph No. 13 of the corr :ction order, the trial Court clarihed that the words "no corr raband was seized" shall be read as "contraband was seizecl.^'' trezrting the earlier statement as a clerical error. Since the ( ( rrection has already been made, and bail once granted cannor le cancelled mercly on such grounds, and requested the Court r dismiss the petition-

¶36

Upon consideration of the submissions advar ced by both learned counsel and on careful examination of tl-r,: record. ir is

¶37

noted that the prosecution^{Iiled this petition for cancellationof} bail on the ground of a^{wrong observation madeby the trial} Court. It is evident that^{contraband was indeed seized from} accused No.1, namely 3.2^{grams of OG Weed Ganja, 1.60grams} of Ecstasy Pills, and 10 grams of cocainc. Though the trial Court initially observed otherwise, the said error was subsequently corrected by its order, clearly recording that contraband was seized from accused No.1. Once the correction has been made, and the seizure stands admitted, there are no valid grounds to cancel the baii already granted. An accused cannot bc penalized for a clerical mistake committed by the trial Court. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the peti tion.

¶38

7 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed

¶39

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶40

closed

¶41

SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR A SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Cyber6bad, Xlll Additional Ranga D_istrict Reddy and Sessions Judge Distirct. - AT HYDERABAD L.B. C..,r<.LNagar,

¶46

i \

¶47

The SHO Cyberabad Narcotic Police Station, TG Anti N a cotic Bureau, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.

¶48

3 One CC to SRI V RAJENDER RAO Advocate IOPUCI

¶49

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the )tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶50

Two CD Copies

PK/PSL -Ta &K\

I I

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212025

CRLP.No.10993 of 2025

¶57

. i--.iSrAii:
(1 .)
o I B Jt\N itlt r)
,+
+
I

¶58

CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED.

¶59

/,/,^

The State of Telangana v. Annamaneni Surya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Telangana v. Annamaneni Surya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodamala Karuna Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Kodamala Karuna Sree Vs the State of Telangana

Thumma Ajay Manikanta Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Thimmaipally Sidda Goud alias Siddu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana, Vs Dasari Vijaya Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder

A4 S Laxmi Prassana Vs State of Telangana