Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Chinnapareddy Tirupathi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Contempt Case No. 983, 984 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - The court dismissed the bail application of the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as they were accused of possessing a commercial quantity of ganja and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applied to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of possessing 24 KGs of ganja, a commercial quantity, and were apprehended by the police while transporting the contraband in a car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage as the accusation against them was prima facie well founded, and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applied to the case.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for possession of commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the petitioners were apprehended with a commercial quantity of ganja and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applied to the case, indicating that they were not entitled to bail at that stage.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were not granted bail.
JUDGMENT
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.983 of 2022 is a-1 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.984 of 2022 is a-3 in Crime No.295 of 2021 of Peddapadu Police Station, West Godavari District. Therefore, as the petitioners are accused in the same crime, these petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
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 them in the above crime.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on the request made by a-4, to a-1 to a-3 to supply ganja to him that a-1 to a-3 have procured ganja from a-5 and when they are transporting the said 24 KGs of ganja in a car that a-1 to a-3 were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence along with other accused in the above crime.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. The contraband that is involved in this case is 24 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. There is nothing to indicate on record that the petitioners are not guilty of committing the said offence. On the other hand, as the petitioners were apprehended by the police when they are in possession of 24 KGs of ganja and while they were transporting the same in a car, the accusation made against the petitioners is prima facie well founded. Further, investigation in this case is pending. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage.
7. Resultantly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
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 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 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 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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the small quantity of contraband seized and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners were influential factors in granting bail under the....
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.
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
