Dr. K. Pattabhi Rama Rao

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present : Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, Chairman, MACT-cum- I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

MVOP NO.98 OF 2021

Between:-

B.Durga Rao s/o Venkateswara Rao, 25 years, Occ: Tiles Worker r/o N/o H.No.8-103/2, Kombotla Palem, Achanta Mandalam, Gumaparru post, Valluru, West Godavari District, Andhra pradesh, presently residing at Plot No.40, H.No.8-7-55/B, 40/A, Shiridi Sainagar colony, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

...Petitioner

AND

1.Thota Balakrishna s/o Kishan, age: Major, Occ: Owner of car bearing No.TS-08-HD-1054, r/o H.No.1-11-1/180/59 & 60/403, Sri Sai Aprts, Vishnavi Enclave, Kushaiguda, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Zuno General Insurance Limited, rep.by its Manager, Office at M.No.7- 1-24/1/RT 203, 2nd floor, Roxana Tower, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3.Kasala Ganga Goud s/o Vittal Goud, 30 years, occ: Car driver r/o H.no.6- 96//D/511, Silver Springs Apartment, Venkateshwaranagar, Quthbullapur, Medchal District.

...Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M.Sravanthi, Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ravi Kiran, Counsel for the Respondent No2; the respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not file counter and upon hearing both sides, perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1989 seeking for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident.

2 of11 MVOP 98-2021 2.(a) According to the case of the petitioner, on 13.09.2020 at about 09:30 pm while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-16-

FH-0715 from Sonia Gandhi Nagar to Aadharsh Nagar route and when he reached Shivasai Park, the driver of the car bearing registration No.TS-08-HD- 1054 drove the vehicle in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle on which the petitioner was proceeding and due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained the following injuries:-

Grade III Compound fracture shaft femur with vascular compromise, guillotine amputation above knee right and other multiple injuries all over the body.

(b) The petitioner claims that he was shifted to Osmania Hospital in ambulance and there the doctors have advised that the right leg of the petitioner should be removed and on the same day the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and he has undergone surgery on 14.09.2020 and the right leg of the petitioner on above the knee was amputated and the petitioner was discharged on 13.10.2020. The case in Crime No.679/2020 under Section 337 of IPC was registered by Kushaiguda police station against the driver of the car bearing No. TS-08-HD-1054.

(c)The petitioner claims that he was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and he was doing tiles work and he was earning an amount of

Rs.15,000/- per month and he has contributed his entire earnings for the maintenance of the family. It is contended that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and fractures and his right leg above the knee was amputated. The petitioner has claimed that he was permanently disabled by the accident and lost his earning capacity. The petitioner claims that he is the only earning member of the family and he suffered from pain and trauma.

(d)The petitioner claims that he spent huge amounts and it is contended that only because of the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing 3 of11 MVOP 98-2021 registration No.TS-08-HD-1054, the petitioner sustained the entire loss in his life. It is contended that respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent No.3 is the driver of the above said car. However, the name of respondent No.2 Edelweiss General Insurance

Company was deleted and name of Zuno General Insurance Company Ltd was incorporated.

3.The respondent No.2 filed counter stating that stating that the allegations are not true and it is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the car bearing registration No.TS-08-HD-1054. The respondent No.2 also denied the allegation that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and the respondent No.2 denied all the allegations. According to respondent No.2 they are not liable to pay the compensation as the petitioner and two others were going on the same motor bike bearing registration No.AP-16-SH-0775 which amounts to triple riding and therefore, the petitioner has violated the law and the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation. It is stated that there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. According to him the incident took place on 13.09.2020 and the report was given on 15.09.2020.

4.Based on the petition and counter, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1)Whether the accident occurred and the petitioner sustained injuries in the road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle car bearing registration No.TS-08-HD-1054 by its driver (third respondent?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(3)To what relief?

5.The petitioner examined PW1 to PW3 on his behalf and the respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 though made appearance, did not file the counter.

4 of11 MVOP 98-2021

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1:- In order to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of respondent No.3, the evidence of PW1 is pressed into record. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked on behalf of the petitioner. In the examination in chief, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition.

8.The counsel for respondent No.2 cross-examined this witness and during the cross examination, the petitioner has stated the incident has took place on 13.09.2020 at 9.30 pm and he has deposed that he does not know the registration number of vehicle on which he was proceeding. The petitioner has admitted that there were three persons riding on the motorcycle at the time of the accident and he deposed that he was riding the motorcycle. PW1 further admitted that in Ex.A1, they have not mentioned the details of the crime vehicle and he has given report two days after the incident. PW1 denied the suggestion that the amount shown in Ex.A6 is inflated one and PW1 denied the other suggestions.

8.PW2 and PW3 are the medical officers. PW2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 13.09.2020 at about 11.30 pm, PW1/petitioner was brought to the Osmania General Hospital and evaluation of the injuries, they found 15X10X4 cm laceration over anterior aspect of thigh right side which exposed bones and muscles and the petitioner was treated as Grade-3(c) compound fracture of shaft femur right side with neuro vascular deficit. PW2 also deposed that on 14.09.2020 at 8:00 a.m., guillotine amputation of right lower limb above the knee level under spinal anesthesia was done and the right leg of the petitioner was amputated. PW2 deposed about the treatment given to him immediately after amputation and the post amputation effects.

PW2 deposed that the petitioner needs to walk only with walking aids like crutches and he cannot even wear an artificial limb, but there is chance of infection if artificial limb is used. PW2 further deposed that artificial limb costs about Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh and twenty thousand only).

5 of11 MVOP 98-2021

9.During the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that himself and other postgraduates of orthopedics have attended patient at the time of the admission. PW2 further deposed that during the follow up visit, the patient was attended by different doctors. But he has reiterated that the surgery on 14.09.2020 was done by him and the closure procedure of amputation and stump on 14.10.2020 was done by the postgraduate under supervision by him. PW2 has deposed that age of the patient is 25 years.

10.PW3 is orthopedic surgeon working in a hospital and he is member of medical boards in 2013. He deposed that petitioner approached him seeking for disability certificate as he was working as member of medical board, he examined the petitioner and assessed 86% disability. He issued the disability certificate which is marked as Ex.A5. During the cross-examination, PW3 deposed that he is not the person who treated and he has only evaluated the percentage of the disability.

11.The first aspect the Court has to consider is whether the respondent

No.3 is negligent in driving car bearing No. TS-08-HD-1054.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in (1) The Oriental Insurance Company

Limited vs Meena Variyal & Others 2007 (5) SCC 420; (2) Minu B. Mehta

And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and another 1997 (2) SCC 441 (3) Lachoo Ram & Ors v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation AIR 2014 SC (Suppl.) 1218, has categorically held that in order to award compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is sine qua non condition, but, at the same time, it is settled principle of law that the degree of proof required is preponderance and it is not necessary to prove the negligence of the driver beyond reasonable doubt.

13.In Vimla Devi v. The National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (2)

SCC 186, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that when the material documents are filed to prove the factum of the accident and the persons 6 of11 MVOP 98-2021 involved therein and when the petitioner has adduced the evidence to prove the negligence of the driver, no further evidence is required to prove the negligence.

14.In view of the above judgments, the degree of proof required is only the probabilities and by filing Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the petitioner could establish. It is also to be stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this case did not contest the petition and therefore, it is proved that the accident occurred is due to the negligence of the diver of the vehicle who is respondent No.3 herein.

Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

15. Issue No.2:-

Since the petitioner has sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident which was caused by the driver bearing registration No. TS-08-HD- 1054 (respondent No.3) the petitioner is entitled for compensation since respondents No.1 and 3 did contest and respondent No.2 contends that it need not pay the compensation as there is triple riding.

16.In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ramamurthy, 2014

ACJ 2425, it was held that triple riding by itself does not raise presumption that the persons were riding the motorcycle is rash or negligent manner and that they contributed to the accident.

17.In Binoj Anthony v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2014

ACJ 1678, it was held that mere fact that the motorcycle was carrying two pillion riders cannot ipso facto give rise to an inference of contributory negligence unless it is proved that such carrying of two pillion riders actually contributed occurrence.

18. In Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company Ltd., 2020 (1) ALD 231, in which it was held that even in case of triple riding in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased-victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, it cannot be considered as contributory negligence.

7 of11 MVOP 98-2021 19.In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Jaswinder Kaur and others 2016 ACJ 936, it was held that mere fact that the deceased were triple riding on a motorcycle is not a reason to decline the petitioner under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. In this case on hand, the respondent No.2-insurance company is under an obligation to prove that triple riding is actually resulted in contributory negligence and such an evidence is not adduced by the respondents.

20.Therefore, in all the cases of triple riding, it cannot be said that the insurer is not liable. The insurer as to specifically prove that the vehicle was being driven negligently by the persons who were riding the motorcycle and in the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that defence taken by the insurer that they are not liable to pay compensation because of triple riding is not sustained in the facts and circumstance of this case.

21.Another contention raised by the respondent in their counter is that the police did not inform the incident and there is delay in giving the report to the police. In the FIR, the petitioner has stated about the details of the vehicle and in the charge-sheet filed by the police, respondent No.3 herein is arrayed as an accused. In the investigation done by police Kushaiguda, police found that respondent No.2 caused the accident.

22.The respondent No.1 and 3 did not challenge the same and respondent

No.2 who is the insurer also did not challenge the correctness of the investigation. There is no allegation against the police or any other person that respondent No.3 is falsely implicated in the criminal case of Kushaiguda

PS.

23.In the above circumstance, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could place adequate evidence before the Court to show that it was respondent

No.3, who was driving the car bearing registration No. TS-08-HD-1054 which was insured with respondent No.2.

8 of11 MVOP 98-2021

24.Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration

No. TS-08-HD-1054 and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

25.Now, the another aspect which is to be decided is the quantum of the compensation that can be granted to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the leg amputation was done above the knee and the admitted fact is that the right leg of the petitioner above the knee was completely amputated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the disability certificate issued by the doctor under Ex.A5 only shows 86% of the disability, whereas, the functional disability shall be considered as 100%. He also has considered that the petitioner has purchased right above knee prosthesis with silicon liner lock with weight activated knee joint with single access foot for an amount of Rs.65,000/- and the petitioner is entitled for the above said amount.

26.In the above circumstance, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation and the compensation shall be awarded to the petitioner after taking into the disability of the petitioner into consideration.

27.Having considering the fact that the petitioner has sustained complete amputation of the leg, he would not be able to do his normal works and he would not be able to do any kind of work and remains as dependent forever.

According to the case of the petitioner, he was doing tiles work and he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) per month excluding his personal expenses. A tiles working is a person who does the work of arranging the tiles on the floors and the petitioner having lost his right leg would not be able to perform his work and he cannot sit on the ground to do the said work. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner can be considered as 100% for the purpose of awarding the compensation.

9 of11 MVOP 98-2021

28.The income of the petitioner shall be considered as Rs.400/- per day and on an average, for at least 25 days in a month and he shall be given compensation considering his income at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month as his income. Since, it is a case of permanent disability of the petitioner who remains as dependent, no amount can be deducted towards his personal expenses.

29.Having considered all the facts and circumstance, I allow the petition granting the following amount as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

30.Now, I proceed to determine the compensation for which the petitioner is entitled. As stated in the above judgments, the court has to take pragmatic considerations while fixing the compensation. Taking the income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) per month, I determine the quantum of compensation as follows:-

Sl.DescriptionRs. No.

1.Loss of income

(a) Income per annum Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-

2.Since the age of the petitioner is 25 years as on theRs.21,60,000=00 date of accident as per the documents filed by the petitioner, the multiplier to be applied is and the amount of compensation is Rs.1,20,000/- x 18= Rs.21,60,000/-. (b) No further prospects added since it is case of permanent disability and the petitioner could undertake any such works which can done in sitting position).

3.Pain and suffering1,50,000=00

4.Transportation charges35,000=00

5.65,000=00

6.Loss of amenities and comfort in life1,00,000=00 25,10,000=00 (Rupees Twenty five lakh and ten thousand only) 10 of11 MVOP 98-2021 31.Since there was no violation of the terms of the insurance policy, the respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the above said compensation with interest @ 6.5% per annum interest.

32. Issue No.3:- In the result, the claim is allowed, in part, against the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.25,10,000=00 (Rupees Twenty five lakh and ten thousand only)with proportionate costs and interest in favour of the petitioner and the award is passed in the following terms:-

1.The respondents Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.25,10,000=00 (Rupees Twenty five lakh and ten thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest on the said sum @ 6.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the deposit.

2.The respondent No.2-insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount, through NEFT or RTGS to the account of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, Current Account No.43390563207 of SBI, Ranga Reddy

District Court Complex, with IFS Code No.SBIN0021100, awarded within two months from the date of the order.

3.On such deposit of the compensation of the amount, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the above said sum with interest as deposited by the respondent No.2-Insurance company.

4.The deficit court fee, if any, shall be paid and on such payment, the

Decree will be prepared.

5.Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

11 of11 MVOP 98-2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER: FOR THE RESPONDENT:

PW-1 B.Durga RaoNone PW-2 Dr.Arjun Naik PW-3 Dr.P.Madhusudhan

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 Certified copy of MLC Ex.A4 Original discharge summary Ex.A5 Original permanent disability certificate Ex.A6 Original Bill for Rs.65,000/- Ex.A7 Original colour photographs of the petitioner

FOR RESPONDENT:

NIL

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present:- Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.731 of 2025

IN

Cr.No.62 of 2024

Between:-

Manam Vamshi Krishna s/o Srinivas Rao, 36 years, Occ: Real Estate Agent, r/o Flat No.307, Maruthin Nivas Alinidi colony, Sudharsh nagar colony, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District n/o Ramkuru village, J.Panguluru mandal, Bapatla District, Andhra Pradesh State.

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

AND The State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, EOW, PS Cyberabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Narsing Rao, Counsel for the petitioner/ accused and Smt.K.V.Beena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the material on record and having heard and stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is the second application is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suriksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking for grant of bail. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 01.04.2025.

2.(a)The case of prosecution is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are partners in “We own Infra groups” and the accused No.3 joined the above said group 2 and the accused Nos.1 to 3 together have collected crores of rupees from number of victims in the name of different schemes such as Buy-back schemes and it is alleged that the defacto-complainant gave report to the

Station House Officer, Economic Offences Wing and it is alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have established the company “We own Infra groups”.

The accused No.1 is the Managing Director, accused No.2 is the Director and accused No.3 is the Sales Marketing Director of the said company.

(b)Several schemes were floated and the defacto-complainant joined in a scheme under which Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) is deposited with “We own Infra groups”, it will pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) per month for a period of 25 months and after that the

principal amount will be returned at the end of the scheme period. It is

also promised by “We own Infra groups” that Ac.00.01 gt of land will be registered in the name of the deposits and they also issued post dated cheques for the principal amount. There are other schemes in which the amount to be deposited vary.

(c)The police, who registered the case, have investigated into the offence and during the course of investigation, it came to know that the accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired together and accused No.3, being the Sales

Manager, used to upload various schemes of “We own Infra groups”, using his Facebook ID on the social media and an account was opened by accused

No.3 to get the commission deposited from the accused company.

(d)It is contended that in the buy-back scheme, if the investment is

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only), an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees

Twenty thousand only) will be given. If the amount deposited is

Rs.6,00,000- (Rupees Six lakh only), Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand only) will be given and it is also stated that Ac.00.01 gt of land will be registered in the name of the depositors.

3 3.(a)The petitioner herein is the accused No.3 in this case and after narrating the facts of the case, the petitioner has stated in the petition that he is not the person responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment and even as per the remand case diary, he is not involved in any cash transactions, but the prosecution has falsely implicated.

(b)The petitioner also contends that he is one of the victims of the financial establishments run by the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 cheated the petitioner also, but the defacto-complainant has falsely implicated him to get back his money to play pressure tactics. The petitioner contends that he is from a respectable family and he denies all the allegations. He is also contended that the investigation in this case is completed and if there is any remaining investigation, he will be co- operating with the investigating agency.

4.The respondent filed the counter detailing about the case and it is stated that it is a huge scale fraud and therefore, the Court cannot grant bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:"Whether the court can enlarge the petitioner on bail?”

7. POINT:- The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in collecting huge amount from various people and he is a party to huge scam. The allegation is that about Rs.12 Crores was misappropriated by the petitioner and others. He is closely associated with accused No.1 from the inception.

8.As stated above, the petitioner is the accused No.3 in this case and he is the person, who collected the amount from various people. It is to be 4 stated that accused No.3 is associated with accused No.1 since inception and accused Nos.1 to 3 are aware that such huge sum cannot be given.

Moreover, if Ac.00.01 gt of land is given to the depositors, it would be grossly inadequate for consideration of Rs.6,00,000- (Rupees Six lakh only).

9.This is the second bail application and according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is one of the prime accused, who instigated several other persons to commit the offences. Huge amount of misappropriation is being alleged against the petitioner. In view of huge amount of alleged misappropriation, the police need sufficient time and opportunity to comlete the investigation. The petitioner is arrested in connection with financial crime. In financial crimes, there is every possibility that the accused threaten or lure the victims for coercing the vicrtims to settle the matter. Further is there is no change of circumstances from the dismissal of earlier bail application. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, petition cannot be allowed.

10.In the result, petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Copy to all the concerned.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present:- Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.744 OF 2025

IN

Cr.No.1661 of 2024

Between:-

Balusu Tarun s/o Srinivas rao, 27 years, Occ: Pvt.employee, r/o H.No.1-9- 323/31, Bhagyanagar colony, Kushaiguda, N/o 1/96, Ramalayam.

...Petitioner/Accused No.21

AND

The State of Telangana through SHO PS Miyapur.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner/ accused and Smt.K.V.Beena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusing the material on record and having heard and stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking for grant of bail, by accused No.25, for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (b) (c) and 27 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2.(a)In order to decide this application, it is necessary to briefly state the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution, as could be understood by the contents of the remand report, is that on 04.12.2024 on receiving of information, the STF team conducted checking near Chandanagar railway 2 station, Serlingampally, the seizing officer has intercepted the accused, and found 17 grams of MDMA and seized the same from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Later, the police seized 17 grams of MDMA. The petitioner/accused No.25 was arrested on 09.03.2025.

(b)It is alleged by the complainant that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (b) and 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused was remanded to judicial custody on 15.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody.

3.The petitioner has filed this application contending that a false case is foisted against him and it is claimed that the petitioner is innocent person and nothing to do with the crime. It is also contended that the petitioner is entitled for bail since he has not committed any offence. It is further contended that the investigation in this case is completed.

4.The respondent-complainant filed counter opposed for granting of the bail to the petitioners. In the counter, the prosecution has narrated the entire case and it is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will commit similar offences. It is also contended that the total quantity seized from the possession of the accused is 17 grams, which is commercial quantity.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point for consideration is: "Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?”

7. POINT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigating officer has completed the investigation.

8.The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity and when it is commercial quantity, the court has to be guided by Section 37 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner raised objections on some procedural irregularities.

10.Recently in NCB v. Kashif [2024 INSC 1045], the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed as follows:-

39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:

(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.

(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.

(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.

(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.

(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

4 11.In view of the above judgment, I am of the opinion that in this case on hand, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. There is no change in the circumstances from the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The petitioner could not establish that the twin conditions, mentioned in Section 37 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are satisfied.

12.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT LB NAGAR.

Copy to all concerned.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Present:- Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.758 OF 2025

IN

Cr.No.522 of 2025

Between:-

Ellandula Bhargav s/o E.Tirupathi, 21 years, Occ: Drug Peddler, r/o Room.No.101, 1st floor, Plot No.9, H.No.1-98/5/9/A, C/o Dandamudi Jagan Mohan, Sri Lakhsmi Nilayam, Divya Sai Enclave colony, VIP Hills, Ayyappa society, Madhapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District r/o H.No.2-19/3, Near Bus stop, Odedu, Karimnagar district.

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

AND

The State of Telangana through SHO PS Madhapur.

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms.Saggal Srivani, Counsel for Petitioner/accused and Smt.K.V.Beena,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon hearing both sides and

perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking for grant of bail.

2.(a)According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.03.2025, the accused were found in possession of 1.996 kgs of ganja. The above said ganja was seized at Sri Lakshmi Nilayam, Ayyappa society, Madhapur. The Police officer got information and conducted raid after complying with Section 42 (2) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is in conscious possession of ganja and 2 has been involved in possession of ganja.

3.The petitioner has contended that he has not committed any offence and he is an innocent person. It is contended that he is law abiding citizen and the entire investigation in this case is completed. It is also contended that he is only bread-winner of the family and he is ready to furnish the surety.

4.The respondent filed counter contending that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to commit similar offence again and it is contended that he will involve in Narcotic Drugs and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point for consideration is "Whether the petitioner/ accused can be enlarged on bail?”

7. POINT:-

I have gone through the case diary and considered the arguments of both sides. The contraband seized is less than commercial quantity and it is to be considered as intermediary quantity, since it is more than small quantity. It is noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2025 and he has been in judicial custody since then. This is the first bail application and the investigation is almost completed. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail.

Investigation in this case is almost completed and the only formality remaining is laying the charge sheet. The police got enough time to complete the investigation and the contraband seized is not commercial quantity and therefore, this application is to be considered in the light of Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not apply.

8.There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and it can be seen that even in the counter the complainant did not state anything about 3 the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Even after time was granted to the complainant to trace out the source of supply and procure the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, in this case, the complainant got enough opportunity to trace out all the persons involved in this case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition can be allowed to grant bail to the petitioner on obtaining adequate and reasonable surety for their appearance and on imposing of conditions till completion of the investigation.

9.In the result, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail, on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only)with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned X-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Station House Officer, concerned, on every Sunday between 10:00 A.M.

and 12:00 Noon for a period of two (02) months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier and on the further condition that the petitioner/accused shall undergo “three-day counselling” on drug abuse that will be arranged every week from Wednesday till Friday by the learned

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District, in Nyaya

Seva Sadan, DLSA, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner shall report to the learned Secretary, DLSA on Wednesday, after release of the petitioner. The petitioner shall attend all the three days and obtain a certificate from DLSA and file the same with memo before the court. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DLSA, Ranga Reddy District through email.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

I-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

Copy to all concerned.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present:- Dr.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

Crl.M.P.No.727 of 2025

IN

Cr.No.30 of 2025

Between:-

Sohail Ahmed s/o Asad Ahmed, 29 years, R/o H.No.9-4-134/1/15/1, Nadeem colony, Golconda, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

AND

The State of Telangana through Excise Shamshabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Yadagiri, Counsel for Petitioner/accused and Smt.K.V.Beena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon hearing both sides and perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 in this case under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2.(a)According to the case of the prosecution, on 04.04.2025 the Excise officers received information about illegal transportation sale of narcotics near Shaheen Heights, Meer Lane, Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, the Excise officers went to the said place and found the accused in possession of 56 LSD bottles weighing 0.0168 grams, OG Kush 20.7 grams and 32.5 grams of Charas.

The seizing officer has seized the said contraband from the possession of the 2 accused. The Excise officer arrested the accused and produced them before the court. The allegation is that the petitioner is in possession of the contraband and thus, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The quantity seized from the possession of the accused are intermediary quantity and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.04.2025.

3.In the petition filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is nothing to do with the above case and nothing is seized from the possession of the accused and the petitioner is law abiding and honest citizen and it is also stated that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutorfiled counter opposing bail on the ground that if the accused are released on bail, he will commit the offence and he will threaten informants and they may even hinder the investigation.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point for consideration is "Whether the petitioners/ accused are entitled for bail?”

7. POINT:- I have gone through the case diary and considered the arguments of both sides. The contraband seized is less than commercial quantity and it is to be considered as intermediary quantity, since it is more than small quantity. It is noticed that the petitioners were arrested on 04.04.2025 and they have been in judicial custody since then. This is the first bail application and the investigation is pending. The complainant needs some more time to procure

Analyst report and more time will be required to find out whether the petitioners are involved in any other cases and to find out whether the petitioners will be committing similar crime or any other.

8.The investigating agency shall be given sufficient time to find out whether any other persons are involved along with the accused in this case 3 and to find out source of supply of the contraband and any other persons associated with them for supply of the contraband. If the petitioner is released, it becomes difficult for the investigating agency as the petitioner will be divulging the information he disclosed to the investigating agency.

9.Though the quantity seized from the possession of the petitioner is intermediary quantity, it is to be noticed that the Police officer shall get sufficient time to complete the investigation. According to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, the investigation in this case is not completed. It

is alleged that the petitioner is involved in doing business in narcotic drugs.

10.For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the petition and it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

11.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

I-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

Copy to all concerned.