Al- Nade Birju 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 2025-12-17. Al- Nade Birju 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 WEDNESDAY IHE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15832 OF 2025 Between: A1-Nade Birju, S/o. Nade Pandit aged about 37 years Occ. Pvt Employee Rio. H. No. 11-1-116'1 , Afzal Sagar. Mallepally, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND The state of Telangana, Through SHO. Prohibition and Excise Shamshabad. Rep by its public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana ,at Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS 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. 1 on bail in connection with the Crime FIR . Noj4812025 of Excise P.
S Shamshabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K SUNIL CHOWDARY, Advocate for the Petitioner and D. ARUN KUIVAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15832 of 2O2S DATE: 17. 12. 2025 BETWEEN: Nade Birju ..... petitioner/ accused No. 1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/complainant ORDER This Criminai Petition is hled seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, on bail, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 148 ol 2025 of Prohibition and Excise Police It- Crl. P. No. 15832 of 2025 Station, Samshabad, Hyderabad, rcgistered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read rvith 22(c) of NDPS Acr. 2.
The case of the prosecution u'as that on 29. 08. 2O25, at about 12:58 P. M. , the P & tr Sub-lnspector of Excise Police Station, Shamshabad, along with his staff, conducted a raid at Room No. 08, Biock-A, Vambay Colony, Upperpally, Rajendranagar, R. R. District, based on credible information. During the search, the oflicers found seven boxes containing a total of 20lO Nitrazepam tablets (10 mg each) weighing about 1 143. 6 grams. 3. Heard Sri K. Sunil Chowdary, 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledgc of the tablets found in the house, as the premises did not belong to him but to a friend of the co-accused. He further submitted that the contraband was seized from the house and not from thc personal possession of the petitioner. He contended that the seized substance was a Crl.
P. [o. 1s832 of2o25 Schedule H pharmaceutical drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 194O, with a minimal content of Nitrazepam (only 10 mg per tablet), totaling about 20. 1 grams, which did not justify prosecution under lhe NDPS Ac!. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioncr stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnesses. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that previously the petitioner had hied Crl. P. No.
13475 of 2O25 before this Court, seeking the relief of grant of anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed uide order dated 06. 1i. 2O25 observing that 'Seclion 37 of the -IVDPS Act mandates that offences inuoluing commerciol quontities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to belieue the acansed is not , sxs,J C11. P. I{o. 15832 of 2()25 - guiltg and unlikely to commit offences while on further batl. Giuen the seious set of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not satisfted that conditions granting for bail under Section 37 are met'. Llowcver, it is noticed that there are no changed circumstances back then in the earlier bail petition, and the present bail petition. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for, by the petitioner. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismisscd Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closcd. SD/. U.
SUD TANT REGI //TRUE COPY' CTION OFFICER To, -cum-V M M at LB Nagar' Ranga First Class Magistrate 1 The Speclal Judicial Reddy District shmshabad' Police Station 2 The Station House Officer' Shamshabad Excise Ranga Reddy District to SRI K SUNIL CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC at State High Court for the of Telangana 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor' Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD CoPies VM/PSL %, HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 c':r ,- Lf -- . . l j: ORDER 1 CRLP. No. 15832 of 2025 ( o O , 11 ttB i026 t I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
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.