Bhima Pujari , v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-02. Bhima Pujari , v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14994 OF 2025 Between: Bhima Pujari, S/o. Sahadeb Pujari, Aged. 31 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. Singal Bachha Village, Malthili Mandal,Malkangiri District, Oddisa State. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 't AND The State of Telangana, Througrh Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. ... RespondenUCom plainant Petition under Section 528 of B. N. S. S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No. l on bail in the interest of justice. ln connection with, Crime No. 806 of 2025 P. S Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gulab Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent state. The Court made the following: ORDER :;i{' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI, INGANA AT TTTDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJ/ JtA CRIMINAL PETITION l{o. 149! t4 ol 2O2t 2Nd DAY OF DECEUBER 2025 Between: Bhima Pujari. I' DTITIOITER The Statc of Telangana, Through Public Prosecuto r High Court for the Sate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. RE SP'ONDENT ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed seeking tt e Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as it :cused No. 1 in Crime No. 8O6 of 2025 of Saroornagar Pc,l ce Station, Rachakond:r Commissionerate, registered for 1re offences punishabte under Section 8(c) read with 2O(bXi. ) C) of NDPS Act. '2. 'l'he r brief facts of the case are t]rat, on 19 t7.
2O25, rhe complzrinant rc<:eived credible information regard i lg the illegal I transportation of NDPS substance. Acting on this information, the complainant conducted a raid and seized 4 liters of hashish oil which is about 3. 75 kilograms from the possession of accused No,l and 2 under cover of panchanama and accused No. 1 was arrestd, and a case was registered against him fior the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 2o(bXiiXC) of NDPS Act. 3. Heard Sri Gulab Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for respondent - State. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and ttre allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime for statistical purposes and that the police conducted the search and recorded the panchanama without adhering to the mandatory procedures prescribed under the provisions of the NDFS Act. He further stated that the petitioner was arrested on 19. O7. 2025 and that the investigation has been completed, €xcept for the fiting of the charge sheet and that the petitioner is willing to cooperate wirh the investigation and also ready to abide by the -t conditions, which are going to be imposed by t. l is Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to th,: petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 5.
On the other hand, the learned Additicr aI Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by 11 e learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the alleged c lntraband t involved in this case amounts to 3. 75 Kgs of tl Lshish oil, which constitutes a commercial quantit5r. . - e further submitted that the investigation is in progress md if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he rr ay tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnessel;, Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions me le and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had filed Crl. P. Nos. 1 1lot] and 12588 of 2025 before this Court seeking the relief of antic . patory bail and the same wcre dismissed.
That being so, it is tLoticed that there are no changed circumstances back then ir the earlier bail petition, ancl the present bail petition, As suc: this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought or, by the . Petition' and petitioner. There are no merits in this Criminal be dismissed' the same is liable to is dismissed' 7 Accordingly, the Criminal petition Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed. SWAMY sd/- K. BHAVANI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Addl Junior 1 Tne S'oecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise)-cum-V 'G;L;;tt' District at Ransareddv judse-cum-v Addl civit ^'i5tlioJ"i'" a. rtt? 3fr:" police. sration, Rachakonda saroornagar House ofricer, 2 t\ cJab Sinsh, Advocate toPucl 3 . j"'"tc . s'i state of relansana [oUrl p'o'"""#]riis"h-;ti;tif";iht 4 rwo ccs to Public 5 Two CD CoPies P' YJR/ D L HIGH COURT ) i DATED:0211212025 : :;1Al: .... G' g t\il! 5 it$ il d . l ) ORDER * CRLP. No. 14994 of 2025 i PETITIO N.
DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL g $
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.