Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 427
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
M. Ranjit Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2825 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2020
Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate
Prima facie evidence of involvement in the transportation of contraband, pending investigation, and nature of offences under the N.D.P.S. Act influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition for anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - The court found that the petitioners were responsible for transporting ganja and banned tobacco products, as revealed by the interrogation of the apprehended individuals. The court held that it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, A3 and A4, were implicated in a case involving the transportation of ganja and banned tobacco products based on the statements given by A1 and A2, who were apprehended with the contraband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were prima facie responsible for transporting the contraband, as revealed by the interrogation of A1 and A2. It held that it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the case.
Issues: Implication of the petitioners based on statements given by apprehended individuals, responsibility for transportation of contraband, fit case for grant of anticipatory bail under N.D.P.S. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the prima facie evidence of the petitioners' involvement in the transportation of contraband, as well as the pending investigation and the nature of the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest.
2. The petitioners are A3 and A4 in Cr.No.539/2020 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, Krishna District.
3. The alleged offences against the petitioners are under Sections 328, 269 and 273 read with 34 IPC, Section 24 of COTP Act and under Sections 8(c) read with 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 26.06.2020 A1 and A2 are found to be illegally transporting banned tobacco products along with ganja in a Eicher Vehicle bearing No.OD 24 E 8032 from Karnataka to Vijayawada side. At that time, the said vehicle was intercepted by the police, apprehended A1 and A2, and seized the contraband from their possession. On interrogation of A1 and A2, who were found to be transporting the said banned tobacco products and ganja, revealed that at the instance of the petitioners who are A3 and A4 that they have been transporting the said tobacco and other banned products and ganja in the said vehicle. Police seized contraband from the possession of A1 and A2. Therefore, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences along with A1 and A2.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not apprehended while they are in possession of the contraband and they are implicated in this case only on the alleged statements said to have been given by A1 and A2 who were arrested along with the contraband and they were falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is only 2 kgs., and thereby prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners who are A3 and A4.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that A3 is the owner of the said vehicle in which the contraband was being transported and when A1 and A2 were apprehended with the contraband, they stated that at the instance of A3 and A4 the contraband was being transported by A1 and A2 who are the driver and cleaner of the vehicle and as such A3 and A4 are mainly responsible for transportation of the said ganja and other banned products. He would submit that the investigation is still pending and having regard to the fact that it is the case under N.D.P.S. Act that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the record.
9. The record reveals that on 26.06.2020 at 4.00 pm., the police apprehended A1 and A2 while they were transporting the banned tobacco products in this case along with 2 kgs., of ganja in a Eicher vehicle bearing No.OD-24E-8032 and seized the contraband from their possession.
10. The record further reveals that on interrogation of A1 and A2 revealed that A3 and A4 insisted them to transport the said banned tobacco products along with ganja. Therefore, it is prima facie found that the petitioners are responsible for transporting the ganja by A1 and A2 who are driver and cleaner of the lorry owned by A3. So, the accusation made against the petitioners is prima facie well founded at this stage. It is not disputed that A3 is the driver of the said vehicle in which the ganja was being transported. So he has to account for the same. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioners for transporting 2 kgs., of ganja and other banned tobacco products in that vehicle by A1 and A2, who are driver and cleaner of the said vehicle. Further, investigation in this case is still pending.
11. Having regard to the fact that at the instance of the petitioners, as per record, the said ganja and other banned tobacco products are being transported in the vehicle of A3 and as the case rel
