Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
Jerra Eswararaju – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. P No.5981 of 2024
Decided On : 05-11-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves an application for bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, related to offences under the NDPS Act concerning possession of a commercial quantity of Ganja (!) .
The accused was arrested with 45 kg of Ganja following credible information, and initial bail applications were dismissed by the Special Judge (!) .
The prosecution argued that the accused is involved in cultivation, storage, transportation, and sale of Ganja, and that the presumption of guilt under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies due to the nature of the offence (!) (!) .
The defense highlighted procedural violations committed by the investigation agency, specifically the failure to adhere to safeguards mandated by Sections 52-A and 42 of the NDPS Act (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation's procedural lapses, such as the improper seizure procedures and the lack of a proper report under Section 42, provided valid grounds to rebut the statutory presumption against bail (!) (!) .
The court observed that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over five months, and since the investigation appears largely complete, continued detention is unnecessary (!) .
As a result, the court granted bail to the accused, subject to certain conditions including personal bonds, sureties, regular attendance, cooperation with investigation, and refraining from any criminal activity (!) .
The order emphasizes that procedural violations by the investigation agency can influence bail decisions, especially when they impact the statutory safeguards and presumptions under the NDPS Act (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks regular bail due to procedural violations. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks bail based on alleged violations. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments presented about presumption of guilt under ndps act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. investigation procedures violated key safeguards. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court finds reasons to grant bail due to procedural lapses. (Para 9) |
| 6. order allowing bail with conditions. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
This criminal petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking regular bail in Crime No.63 of 2024 of Hukumpeta Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').
2. Heard Sri M. Chiranjeevi Babu, the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Perused the record.
4. The allegations are that on receiving credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hukumpeta Police Station, made an entry in the general diary and deputed a Head Constable and his staff who procured Gazetted Officers and they all reached Jarrakonda Village and found this accused-Sri Jerra Eswararaju on 02.06.2024. On seeing the Police, he tried to run away but was caught and after questioning him they discovered in the cattle shed of the petitioner-accused 45 Kgs., of Ganja. He was arrested and the Ganja was seized and he was remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner sought regular bail before the learned Special Judge and that was dismissed and therefore, the present petition.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that commercial quantity of Ganja was found and investigation revealed that the petitioner is a cultivator of Ganja and is also a person who stores, transports and sells Ganja and in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act presumption of guilt raises against him and he cannot be released on bail.
6. Learned Counsel for petitioner who urged certain grounds in bail petition also filed a memo of additional grounds and cited Abdul Rakib v. State of West Bengal , 2023 SCC OnLine Cal. 2462. The substance of the contention is violation of Sections 52 -A and 42 of the NDPS Act.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the seizing officer not only seized the contraband but also drew samples at the spot of seizure itself. Therefore, violated the mandate contained in Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act.
8. The above cited ruling is to the effect that in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the officer receiving information had to prepare a separate report. Mere entry in the general diary does not satisfy the legal requirement since such general diary is closed from public view. Nothing contrary is shown by the State in the case at hand.
9. When two important procedural safeguards were overlooked by the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the opinion that they afford valid reason for the petitioner to rebut the statutory restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Added to that, one may notice that for the last more than five months the petitioner has been in judicial custody. Best part of the investigation seems to have been over. Hence, any continued detention does not seem necessary. Therefore, prayer is granted.
10. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m., till filing of the charge-sheet. Petitioner shall m
Procedural violations under the NDPS Act allow the accused to rebut the statutory presumption against bail, resulting in bail being granted.
The quantity of seized drugs being a commercial quantity is a crucial factor in determining the grant of 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.
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
