Allowed

Mr. Konde Mallikarjun v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025CRLP/2013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused No.1 in an NDPS case for alleged illegal buying and selling of contraband, sought regular bail after earlier rejections. The court found no incriminating evidence against him and noted his custody since arrest; bail was granted with bond, sureties, weekly appearance, and statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties, subject to weekly reporting and Section 437(3)/480(3) conditions.

Mr. Konde Mallikarjun Vs State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2013 of 2025

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.165 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Serilingampally, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that on 04.12.2024, the Serilingampally Prohibition and Excise Police seized the contraband as the accused persons are buying and selling the contraband illegally to the general public in order to earn money in an ease manner and also registered a case vide Crime No.165 of 2024 before the Prohibition and Excise Police, Serilingampally, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act.

¶6

Heard Sri. B.D.Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶7

¶8

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2013 of 2025

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences. He secondly submitted that except the allegation that the petitioner is driver of the said vehicle, no other specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. He thirdly submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the petitioner was implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations. He fourthly submitted that all the material witnesses were examined, and further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. He fifthly submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.12.2024, causing undue hardship to his family. He sixthly submitted that this Court has granted bail to the other accused. He seventhly submitted the petitioner is resident of Karnataka State, with movable and immovable properties, and is willing to furnish sureties as directed. He lastly submitted that previously, bail applications of the petitioner, vide Crl.M.P.Nos.2542 of 2024 and 39 of 2025 were dismissed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on 26.12.2024 and 16.01.2025, respectively, without valid reasons and prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

¶10

¶11

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2013 of 2025

¶12

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the investigation is not yet completed, therefore, granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage, does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶13

After considering submissions from both the parties and reviewing the record, it is apparent that there is no incriminating evidence to prove the alleged offence against the petitioner and there are no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. It is noteworthy that the petitioner is languishing in jail from 04.12.2024 and material part of the investigation is also completed. Therefore, considering the incarceration period, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶14

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶15

¶16

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2013 of 2025

¶17

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO at 11:00 a.m., on every Monday for a period of eight (8) week or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation, and thereafter, as and when required.

¶18

iii. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.(presently, Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

¶19

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed.

¶20

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

K. SUJANA, J

Date: 19.02.2025 gms

SKS,J Crl.P.No.2013 of 2025

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2013 of 2025

¶28

Date: 19.02.2025

¶29

gms

Mr. Konde Mallikarjun v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Konde Mallikarjun v. 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

Jitta Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

Kedala Pavan Kumar, Warangal and Another Vs Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

Bavuru Vs The State of Telangana

Karra Raghu Vs The State of Telangana

Gajender Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Shah Ghouse Mohiuddin Hussaini Quadri Vs The State of Telangana