Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Nuthalapati Brahmaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1466 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Petition - The court dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the huge quantity of ganja involved, the application of Section 37 of the NDPS act, and the prima facie well-founded accusation against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was apprehended by the police in illegal possession of 810 KGs of ganja, which led to the registration of a case under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being in possession of a huge commercial quantity of ganja, was not entitled to bail at this stage, considering the application of Section 37 of the NDPS act and the pending investigation.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, apprehended with a large quantity of ganja, was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the application of Section 37 of the NDPS act to the present facts of the case, the prima facie well-founded accusation against the petitioner, and the pending investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not enlarged on bail.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
2. The petitioner is a-2 in Crime No.235 of 2021 of annavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.
3. a case under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS' act) was registered against him in the above crime.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that a-1 and a-2 got acquaintance with each other at their previous work place. They have purchased about 810 KGs of ganja from unknown persons, they transported the said ganja in a goods carriage vehicle bearing No.aP 30 Ta 3831, brought the same to Kothangi Village and dumped the same at that place to transport the said ganja to other States. at that time, the police apprehended the petitioner herein. a-1 ran away and escaped from the scene of offence. The police seized the said contraband. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offence in the above crime.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
6. The contraband that is involved in this case is huge quantity of 810 KGs of ganja which is a commercial quantity.
Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applies to the present facts of the case. absolutely, there is nothing to indicate on record that the petitioner is not guilty of committing the said offence. On the other hand, as the petitioner was apprehended by police while he was in illegal possession of 810 KGs of ganja, the accusation made against him is prima facie well founded. Further, investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.
7. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
The application of Section 37 of the NDPS act and the prima facie well-founded accusation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail petition.
The rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to cases involving commercial quantities of drugs, and bail may be denied based on this provision and the pending investigation.
The possession of a commercial quantity of drugs under the NDPS Act can bar the grant of bail, especially when the accusation is prima facie well founded and the investigation is pending.
The accused were not entitled to claim default bail as the charge sheet had been filed before the expiry of the stipulated period of investigation under the NDPS Act.
The commercial quantity of contraband and prima facie evidence can be considered as grounds for denying bail under the NDPS Act.
The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applies to cases involving possession of commercial quantities of drugs, influencing the entitlement to bail.
The commercial quantity of ganja seized and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail petition.
The court considered the quantity of contraband seized and the petitioner's period of incarceration in granting bail under the NDPS Act.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the interpretation of the NDPS Act, specifically regarding the small quantity of contraband seized and the absence of evidence of habitual offending.
The court considered the quantity of the seized contraband and the provisions of the NDPS Act in granting bail to the petitioner/A-2.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
