ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Ambadas Sridhar Bankar - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1691, 1797, 3020, 3175, 3179 And 3229 of 2021
Decided On : 26-08-2021
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 36A(4) - SECTION 167(2) OF CR.P.C - STATUTORY BAIL - ENTITLED TO - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - IN FAVOUR OF ACCUSED - RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested on 12.01.2021 for transporting 1038 Kgs of ganja in two vehicles. They were remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2021. The prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within 180 days and even after the extended period of 14 days granted by the Court below. The petitioners filed a bail application under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C, claiming statutory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail as the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the stipulated time. The Court observed that personal liberty is a cherished object of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law. The Court also noted that the right to bail cannot be suspended even during a pandemic situation.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail as the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the stipulated time. The Court observed that personal liberty is a cherished object of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law. The Court also noted that the right to bail cannot be suspended even during a pandemic situation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioners to be released on bail on furnishing a self bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each.
JUDGMENT
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J. - Since the subject of matter of these criminal petitions, the crime number and the relief are one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a common order.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 12.01.2021 on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of ganja in two vehicles from Narsipatnam to Zaheerabad, Medak District Telangana State, the Police reached Valasapalli Check post on Eluru to Chintalapudi SH-43 road, apprehended A1 to A6, seized 1038 Kgs of ganja in 36 bags worth Rs.83,40,000/-, two vehicles, cash of Rs.6,20,000/- and other belongings from them under mediators report. Basing on the said report, the present crime is registered and A1 to A6 were sent to judicial custody on 13.01.2021.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A1 to A6 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were remanded on 10.01.2021 and they have been languishing in jail for the last 220 days. It is submitted that the prosecution has filed an application under 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of remand before the Court below and the Court below by docket order dated 13.07.2021 extended the remand till 27.07.2021. It is submitted that as the Police failed to file charge sheet within 180 days and ever after lapse of the extended period, the petitioners are entitled for statutory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that Police have filed an application seeking extension of time before the Court below, but the Court below has extended the period only by 14 days instead of 180 days. He submits that assailing the same revision is filed before this Court with a delay of thirty days and the same was dismissed by this Court. He submits that some of the petitioners belong to the States of Maharastra and Telangana and if they are enlarged on bail at this stage, it will be difficult for the prosecution to secure their presence during the course of trial. Hence, he opposed the bail applications.
6. Section 36(A) of the NDPS Act reads thus:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;
(b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate: Provided that in cases which are triable by the Special Court where such Magistrate considers--
(i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or
(ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him, that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Specia
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.