Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Peri Venkatesh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 2313/2024, Criminal Petition No: 2334/2024, Criminal Petition No: 2379/2024, Criminal Petition No: 2517/2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Bail - Criminal Proceedings - NDPS Act - Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 8(c), 52A - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the drawing of samples and the role of the Magistrate, which influenced the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were arrested for illegal possession of Ganja, with the prosecution alleging that they were involved in a significant quantity of contraband. The defense argued that the arrests were unlawful and that proper procedures under the NDPS Act were not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to procedural lapses in the sampling process as mandated by the NDPS Act, leading to doubts about the evidence.
Issues: Whether the accused should be granted bail considering the procedural violations in the investigation and the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial, and any significant deviation raises doubts about the prosecution's case, warranting the grant of bail.
Result: The Criminal Petitions are allowed, granting bail to the accused.
ORDER :
T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail, by different accused i.e., Crl.P.No.2313 of 2024 (filed by A.6); Crl.P.No.2334 of 2024 (filed by A.3); Crl.P.No.2379 of 2024 (filed by A.7) and Crl.P.No.2517 of 2024 (filed by A.2 and A.4) in same crime viz., Crime No.266 of 2023 of Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 26.12.2023 at about 7.00 PM, upon the receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, the S.I of Yelamanchili Rural Police station, secured the presence of mediators and rushed to the outskirts of Somannapalem village of Yelamanchili Mandal and found a black colour bag lying nearby cattle shed of L.Venkatarama Krishna. Upon search, they found six packets of Ganja, each packet weighing approximately 5 kgs, totaling 30 Kgs. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediators’ report. Subsequently, the S.I drawn two samples from each packet for chemical analysis and initiated further investigation based on the mediators’ report, leading to the registration of the case mentioned above.
During the course of investigation, on 28.12.2023, at 11:00 AM, the Inspector of Police, upon credible information, accompanied by mediators and his staff, went to Somannapalem village. There, they apprehended six persons attempting to flee. Upon interrogation, A.1 to A.4 and two juveniles in conflict with law disclosed their identities. Their confessions led to the seizure of 150 kg of Ganja in the presence of mediators. A.1 to A.4 were remanded to judicial custody, while the juveniles in conflict with law were taken to the Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam. A.1 to A.4 confessed about the involvement of A.6 in the commission of offence. On 29.12.2023, A.6 and A.7 were arrested, and 40 kg of Ganja was seized, leading to their remand under the mediators' report.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners asserts that the Petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; there is no element of truth in the allegations mentioned in the report; the alleged recovery attributed to the Petitioners are nothing but an absolute false and that out of suspicion fabricated the panchanama and further remanded them to judicial custody; Prosecution committed a breach of section 52A of NDPS Act by unilaterally conducting sampling without approaching the concerned Magistrate; A.1 has already been granted bail by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024; Petitioners have been languishing in jail since more than 105 days; most of the investigation has been completed; Petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent- State has vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the Petitioners on the ground that the contraband involved in this case constitutes a commercial quantity.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced.
7. As seen from the common order passed by learned Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in Crl.Mp.Nos.45, 237, 121, 57, 125 of 2024, A.1 was granted bail (vide Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024). The trial Court has taken into consideration of the following facts to consider the bail application of A.1:
Strict adherence to procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is essential for the validity of evidence, impacting the court's decision on bail.
Bail under the NDPS Act requires the accused to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty, especially when substantial commercial quantities of contraband are involved.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays in trial and legal defects in the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with NDPS Act provisions for admissibility of evidence, granting bail due to procedural lapses and prolonged incarceration.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
The court established that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, impacting the decision to grant bail.
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must still find reasonab....
Narcotic Substances - Bail rejected - Petitioner has been found in possession of contraband of commercial quantity - Court is unable to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believin....
Interim Bail on medical grounds - Indulge in supply of wholesale and retail cocaine - Petitioner's medical condition is concerned; documents on record do no suggest any immediate medical treatment or....
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
