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 petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking regular bail in Crime No.95 of 2024 of Paderu Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Sri A.Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Perused the record.

4. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the record, the following facts are seen:

On 24.06.2024 police party intercepted the vehicles and discovered 20 kgs of Ganja and arrested these petitioners. They were remanded to judicial custody on that day and since then they have been in judicial custody. Their earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1716 of 2024 was dismissed on 13.08.2024 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge- Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that it is a grave crime and investigation is still under progress and prayer for regular bail may not be granted.

6. However, looking at the facts on record and the investigative work, the following submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners have a lot of bearing:

• It is argued that there is violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

One would notice from the remand report that the seizing officer picked up 50 gms of sample Ganja from each of the packets he seized. This is clear violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

• It is argued that what was seized is not commercial quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application.

As the remand report shows what was seized is 20 kgs and as per the statute if the quantity is more than 20 kgs only then it becomes commercial quantity. The fact is clear that what was recovered was lesser than commercial quantity and more than small quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not fall for consideration.

• The argument for the petitioner is about violation of Section

42(2) of the NDPS Act.

Remand report would show that the police officer had received credible information. However, the remand report does not indicate that he had reduced it into writing and had informed the superior within 72 hours. Thus, there is violation of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.

• It is argued for petitioners that there is violation of Section

55 of the NDPS Act.

A perusal of the remand report shows that the seizing officer merely affixed identity slips on the bags which contained contraband. That makes it clear that the packing and sealing that was expected by the statute was not complied with. Therefore, there is disregard of Section 55 of the NDPS Act.

7. In the above referred circumstances, considering the length of detention and gross procedural violations, this Court is of the opinion that any continued detention does not seem necessary.

Hence, prayer is granted.

8. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Petitioners/A.1 to A.3 shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on 1st and

15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM till filing of the charge sheet. The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation by a police officer as and when required. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them