The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail obtained by misrepresentation of facts can be cancelled, and the stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act must be adhered to.

ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to cancel the bail granted to respondent - accused vide order dated 08.10.2020 in Crl.P. No. 4614 of 2020.

2. Respondent herein is accused No.1 in Crime No. 19 of 2020 of Excise Police Station, Secunderabad. The offence alleged against him is under Section - 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the respondent - accused No. 1.

4. The respondent-accused has filed an application seeking regular bail vide Criminal Petition No. 4614 of 2020, and this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 has granted bail to the respondent herein on certain conditions on considerations of the following contentions of respondent No.1:

(a) 155 Grams of Hashish oil was seized from the petitioner/A1, which is less than the commercial quantity;

(b) A-2 to A-4 were arrested and released on regular bail;

(c) The petitioner was arrested on 27-09-2020; and

(d) There is no other case against him of similar nature.

Thus, this Court has granted the bail considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and released on regular bail.

5. The petitioner - State has filed the present application to cancel the said bail granted to respondent - accused No. 1 on the ground that the respondent - accused No. 1 has deliberately misrepresented this Court and obtained favourable orders. The respondent herein has misrepresented this Court that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and released on bail. But, the fact remains that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were remanded to judicial custody and they were not enlarged on bail. It is further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the bail application filed by accused No. 2 vide Crl.M.P. No. 1918 of 2020 was dismissed on 17.10.2020 by the Sessions Court. Similarly, bail application filed by accused Nos. 3 to 5 vide Crl.M.P. No. 2070 of 2020 was also dismissed by order dated 19.10.2020. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed copies of both the said orders.

6. The above facts would reveal that this Court granted bail to the respondent - accused No. 1 on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and released on bail. It is also relevant to note that this Court has considered the said submission of the respondent - accused No. 1 as one of the considerations for granting bail to the respondent.

7. Perusal of orders dated 17.10.2020 and 19.10.2020 passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1918 of 2020 and 2070 of 2020 respectively by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, would reveal that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were arrested and their bail applications were dismissed. The Sessions Court has specifically pointed out that accused No. 1 has obtained bail by misrepresenting this Court stating that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and released on bail which is factually incorrect.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent - accused No. 1 would submit that he has made the submission that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested and released on bail only on the instructions given by the relatives of accused No. 1 since he is in Jail and that there is a communication gap between him and the relatives of accused No. 1. He would further submit that accused No. 1 is in jail. On account of communication gap between him and the relatives of accused No. 1, the bail granted may not be cancelled. He would further submit that there is no allegation against the respondent that he has violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail and that he is threatening the witnesses and interfering with investigation.

9. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent so