Mukesh Goswamy v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16956 of 2025 DATE: 24.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Mukesh Goswamy .....petitioners/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

.....Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, to permit the petitioner to furnish two sureties of his choice or, in the

alternative, to permit him to furnish a cash surety for a sum of ₹10,000/- by relaxing the condition requiring one local surety, which was imposed while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2025 in S.C. NDPS No.53 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.239 of 2019 2.

Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court, while passing the order, directed the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed therein. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a native of Uttar Pradesh and has no known persons in the State of Telangana to stand as sureties. As such, even though bail has been granted, the petitioner continues to remain in jail. Therefore, he prayed that this Court may be pleased to relax the said condition.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same, stating that the petitioner had not attended the Court since 09.12.2024, even after the

issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). He further submitted that no steps were taken by the petitioner to recall the said warrant. Consequently, the Investigating Authority executed the NBW on 04.02.2025. It was contended that, in the absence of a local surety, it would be difficult for the Investigating Authority to secure the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 5.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2025 in S.C.NDPS No.53 of 2022 in Crime No.239 of 2019, i.e., the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each and one surety must be local resident place of the petitioner/accused No.1 to the satisfaction of the trial Court to that of the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Further, the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the trial for the early disposal of the case.

6.

With the above modification, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.12.2025 SAI

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16956 of 2025 Date: 24.12.2025 SAI