logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 054 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 654 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Parties : Rajesh Kumar Mayiladurai Nagarajan Versus The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Amarnath, Advocate. For the Respondent: N. BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of India.
Date of Judgment : 05-02-2026
Head Note :-
NDPS Act - Sections 21, 23, 28, 29 -
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused No.1 in SC.ND.No.46 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 23, 28, 29 of NDPS Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1 in the case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleging recovery of 5000 grams of cocaine from him at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, on 01.09.2022, pursuant to which he was arrested, produced before the learned Magistrate on 02.09.2022, and remanded to judicial custody, and that he had been continuously in custody since then at Cherlapally Prison. It was alleged that after completion of investigation, the DRI filed the complaint/charge sheet on 13.02.2024, that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Chennai with no criminal antecedents, and that despite directions of this Hon’ble Court to expedite the trial, only a limited number of witnesses had been examined and the trial was still pending.

3. Heard Sri M. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri T.V. Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had undergone prolonged incarceration for more than three years, which amounted to pre-trial punishment in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, that he had no prior criminal record and therefore satisfied the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that there were humanitarian grounds for grant of bail as his aged mother was suffering from serious ailments and was entirely dependent on him after the demise of his father. Therefore, he prayed the Court to grant bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Cousnel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a drug peddler. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and huge commercial quantity of contraband i.e., 5000 grams of Cocaine was seized from the petitioner. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 5000 grams of cocaine, which is a commercial quantity, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The offences alleged are grave and serious in nature. At this stage, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offences alleged or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Further, the trial has already commenced and witnesses are being examined. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for a considerable period and that the trial has commenced, this Court deems it appropriate to issue a direction to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the trial Court to dispose of the SC.ND.No.46 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal of the case.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal