Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 957
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.V.MARUTHI
Shamraj Moorjani - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Government of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12-13-95
The court's decision was primarily influenced by the Supreme Court's directions for an expeditious trial and the fact that the petitioners had already filed successive bail applications.
Headnote:
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 41 - VIOLATION - BAIL APPLICATION - SUCCESIVE APPLICATIONS - CRITERIA FOR GRANTING BAIL - SUPREME COURT DIRECTIONS FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, sought bail, arguing that the impugned proceedings were issued in violation of Section 41 of the Act and that they were entitled to bail as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the Supreme Court had directed the trial to be concluded within six months and that the petitioners had already filed successive bail applications. It also considered the arguments and principles of various judgments relied upon by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the Supreme Court's directions for an expeditious trial. 2. Whether the violation of Section 41 of the Act entitled the petitioners to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in view of the Supreme Court's directions, it was not necessary to consider the applicability of the principles of successive bail applications and the criteria for granting bail to the facts of the present case. 2. The court also declined to express an opinion on the validity of the government order issued under Section 41(2) of the Act, as the scope of powers under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 41 had been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, holding that it was not a fit case for releasing the petitioners on bail at that stage.
( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by accused nos. 3 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 164 of 1995 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad, seeking bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
( 2 ) BEFORE considering the very elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as wel1 as the respondents, it is necessary to refer to certain earlier proceedings.
( 3 ) THE petitioners were arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ). On their arrest, they filed a petition for bail before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad, in Crl. M. P. Nos. 2256 and 2257 of 1995. The same were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners thereafter filed bail application - crl. P. No. 4316 of 1995 before this Court. It came up before Justice P. Ramakrishnam raju. But the learned Judge dismissed the bail application on the ground that there were no grounds to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Against the said order the petitioners filed petition for special leave to appeal Crl. No. 3420-3421 of 1995 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme court dismissed the same by the following order: "the special leave petition is dismissed. However, learned Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad, isdirected to conclude the trial in question as early as possible preferably within six months from today. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the grievance made in the special leave petition.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER the wife of the 1 st petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No. 25 749 of 1995 in this Court which came up for hearing before the Bench consisting of Justice s. Parvatha Rao and Justice Krishnasaran shrivastav. The relief claimed in the said writ petition was to quash the statements of Shamraj Moorjani (1st petitioner herein), dated 4-1-1995, proceedings of his arrest and judicial remand, seizure ofhis vehicle and to declare the same as null and void having offended the mandatory provisions of law and infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. On a consideration of the arguments, the bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition holdingthat:"we find that when once the accused was produced before the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and his personal custody is pursuant to an order of judicial remand admittedly made by the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad, it would be open for the accused to move for bail or question the order of judicial remand made by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge before this Court by way of appropriate proceedings. "
( 5 ) ON such an observation being made, the petitioner sought for permission of the court for withdrawal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the learned Judges dismissed the writ petition on 7-11 -1995.
( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition seeking bail.
( 7 ) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fact that on an earlier occasion the bail petition was dismissed is not a bar for filing successive bail petitions provided there are sufficient reasons for filing such petitions. Secondly, according to the Supreme Court, it is submitted, it is bail and not jail and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. It is next contended that the impugned proceedings were issued in violation of section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), (for short the Act ), as under section 41 of the Act it is the Magistrate who is competent to issue a warrant of arrest and in this case no warrant of arrest was issued and, therefore, there is a patent violation of Section 41 (1) of the Act. The other contention raised was that the petitioners are very respectable citizens of india, highly educated and have extensive properties and, therefore, the cases are foisted against them.
