Patta Joseph v. State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8741 OF 2022 Between:
Patta Joseph, S/o. P. Robin, Aged 22 years, Occ. lT Employee, R/o. H.No.8-1 -4021P,156, Mini Gulshan Colony, Shaikpet, Near Diamond Supermarket, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Accused No.2
AND State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, TS. High Court, Hyderabad.
petition under section 437 and orn ", jit:r:;[il::- circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the release of the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.500 of 2022 on the file of the P.S. SR Nagar, Hyderabad, pending investigation and trial of the case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. DAMODAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8741 of 2022 ORDER:
1.
Heard Sri T.Damodar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is appearing for the Respondent-State.
2.
Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is I I arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No'500 of 2022 of S.R.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and indeed, on completion of investigation, charge sheet is also laid and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail. Learned counsel further submits that Accused Nos.3 to 6 were enlarged on bail. l,earned counsel also states that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.O7.2022 and hence, he is entitled for bail.
,) Crl.P.No.8741 of 2022 4.
On the other hand, the submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner stands on a different footing and it is the petitioner who had supplied the prohibited drug to the other accused i.e., Accused Nos.3 to 6 and thus, the petitioner cannot be equated with that of Accused Nos.3 to 6.
5.
The case of the prosecution as could be perceived through the material available on record is that on 11.O7.2022, the petitioner/Accused No.2 procured 50 grams of MDMA Drug from Accused No. 1 by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- ald sold 14 grams of the said drug to the customers for higher price ald the remaining 36 grams was kept with him for supplying to Accused Nos.3, 4 & 7, who are drug peddlers. As per their plan, Accused Nos.2 to 6 gathered near KCR Classic Apartments, Madhura Nagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad and the petitioner gave 12 grams of MDMA Drug to each of Accused Nos.3 & 4 and he kept the remaining 12 grams of MDMA Drug with him for supplying the same to Accused No.7. When they were ready to leave from that place, they were apprehended by police. The allegations, thus,
Crl.P.No,8741 of 2022 projected are grave in nature. As rightly submitted, the petitioner cannot be equated with that of the other accused i.e., Accused Nos.3 to 6.
6.
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, says that the offences under the said Act are cognizable and non-bailable and it also envisages the special circumstances which have to be taken into consideration for releasing the accused, who is alleged to have committed offences falling within the purview of the said Act, on bail. For a better appreciation, the said provision is extracted as under:
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19741,- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantityl shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
Crl.P.No.8741 of 2022 (ii) where the Public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likelv to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specilied in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of L974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."
7.
Therefore, only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused, who moved an application for $ant of bail, is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, then only bail carr be granted. 8.
In tlre case on hand, prtma facie mateial is on record regarding the culpabilitSr of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail as prayed for.
9.
When a Speciai Act provides special circumstances to be taken into consideration for granting a right relief, the said provision has to be followed in letter and spirit. Thus, having
Crl.P.No.8741 of 2C22 regard to the iaw laid down, and as no justifiable grounds whatsoever are found to enlarge the petitioner on bail, this Court is of the view that the Criminal petition deserves dismissal
10. Resultantly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. 1 1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
I SD/-T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad'
2. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad'
5. fn" Strtion House Officer, S.R Nagar Police Station' Hyderabad District.
+. iwo CCs to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]
5. one ic to sRt. T. DAMODAR, Advocate [oPUC]
6. Two CD CoPies MMK EDS q
HIGH COURT DATED:0611012022 f,.tE*6Ir r
ORDER
r_ 0 3 Ji:: ?L i >l CRLP.No.8741 of 2022 . -?) -;J,,2 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ot', 1,4>