Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Raju Jat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1483 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Petition - The court dismissed the bail petition of the accused under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the seized ganja was of a commercial quantity, and the non-mentioning of the exact quantity in the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving the illegal transportation of ganja under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the accused were not entitled to bail at this stage due to the commercial quantity of ganja seized and the prima facie well-founded accusation against them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were entitled to bail in a case involving the transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the non-mentioning of the exact quantity of ganja in the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution's case, and the bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed, and the accused were not granted bail.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
2. The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in Crime No. 106 of 2021 of Ananthagiri Police Station, Visakhapatnam 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 the petitioners in the above crime.
4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 29.12.2021, when the police reached the scene of offence and conducting vehicle check on receipt of reliable information relating to illegal transportation of ganja that they found one Maruti Alto car bearing No.GJ 12EE 6721 coming towards them and two persons travelling in the said car tried to escape after seeing the police from some distance. Police apprehended them. When they searched the car, they found ganja with seeds, buds, streams and flowers in a polythene cover in the dicky of the car. Subsequently, when the police got the same weighed, they found that it is 60 KGs of ganja being transported in the said car. Police seized the said contraband and arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. The contraband that is seized from the possession of the petitioners is 60 KGs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the quantity of ganja is not mentioned in the F.I.R and that it was subsequently stated in the remand remand that quantity of ganja is 60 KGs and as such it is a false allegation, the said contention has no merit. The facts of the case show that after ganja was found in the car and after it was seized that the police got the same weighed subsequently and found that it was 60 KGs of ganja. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, mere non-mentioning of exact quantity of ganja in F.I.R by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As the quantity of ganja that was seized from the possession of the petitioners is a commercial quantity, the bar and rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present facts of the case. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners are not guilty of committing the said offence. On the other hand, as the ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioners while they were transporting the same, the accusation made against them is prima facie well founded. Investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage.
7. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
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 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 commercial quantity of contraband and prima facie evidence can be considered as grounds for denying bail under the NDPS Act.
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 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 court considered the quantity of the seized contraband and the provisions of the NDPS Act in granting bail to the petitioner/A-2.
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 bar under Section 37 of the NDPS act applies to cases involving possession of commercial quantities of drugs, influencing the entitlement to bail.
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
