Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 930
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Jagal Kishore Mantry – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6075 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate, for the Appellant; Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents
The court can grant bail to an accused person even if the quantity of contraband seized is commercial quantity, if the accused has been in jail for a long time, a substantial part of the investigation is completed, and there are no antecedents against the accused.
Headnote:
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 8(C) R/W. 20(B)(II)(C) - BAIL APPLICATION - QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND SEIZED FROM THE PETITIONER IS OF NON-COMMERCIAL QUANTITY - PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN JAIL SINCE 15.04.2022 - SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED - NO ANTECEDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, A-1, was arrested for possession of 20 Kgs. of Ganja under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner filed a bail application, arguing that the quantity of contraband seized from him was non-commercial and that he had been in jail since 15.04.2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner was non-commercial, that the petitioner had been in jail since 15.04.2022, that a substantial part of the investigation was completed, and that there were no antecedents against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should be granted bail, considering the quantity of contraband seized from him, the period of his custody, the completion of a substantial part of the investigation, and the absence of any antecedents against him.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioner to be released on bail on certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking bail, by the petitioner/A-1, in Crime No. 100 of 2022 of Government Railway Police Station, Vijayawada, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.04.2022 on credible information regarding illegal transportation of Ganja, the Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Vijayawada along with staff and mediators reached platform Nos. 8 & 9 north end of Vijayawada Railway station and found the petitioner/A-1 in possession of 20 Kgs. at platform No. 8 and A-2 in possession of 22 Kgs. of Ganja at platform No. 9 and they confessed that they are indulging in sale of Ganja for easy money. The police seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and registered the above crime.
3. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1, and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1, would submit that, earlier, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 675 of 2022 for grant of bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge on 08.06.2022 on the ground that the contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity.
He would further submit that the mediators report clearly shows that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner is 20 Kgs., whereas it was 22 Kgs. from the possession of A-2, but the police clubbed both of them only to make it a commercial quantity to deny grant of bail to the petitioner.
He would further submit that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 15.04.2022.
He would further submit that there are no prior criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he is the sole bread winner of his entire family. Hence prayed for grant of bail.
5. On the other hand, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, would submit that though 20 Kgs. & 22 Kgs. of contraband was seized from the petitioner and A-2 respectively, they both are friends and hence the contraband seized from them is commercial quantity and thus Section 37 of the Act would come into play.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is granted bail he may not cooperate with the investigation and would conceal himself from the police.
The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further contend that the co-accused/A3 and A4 are yet to be arrested and though there are no antecedents against the petitioner, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may not cooperate with the investigation.
On the above contentions, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Perused the mediators' report. The contents of it show that 20 Kgs. of Ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner/A-1, whereas 22 Kgs. of Ganja was seized from the possession of A-2 and thus the contraband seized from the petitioner/A-1 can be said to be of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has been in jail since 15.04.2022. Substantial part of the investigation is completed.
7. In view of the above, keeping in view the period of custody of the petitioner and since the contraband alleged to have been seized from the petitioner is of non-commercial quantity and as substantial part of the investigation is completed and as there are no antecedents against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, keeping in view the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the following conditions.
(i) The petitioner/A-1 shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty
