Telangana High Court
Gudikadi Linga Goud, vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2024
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking grant of regular bail.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.No.299 of 2023 on the file of the Suraram Police Station, Balanagar, Hyderabad.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 25.12.2023, the accused Nos.3 and 4 were apprehended while they were in illegal possession of Alprazolam of 8 kgs. In the statement of these accused, it was revealed that, the seized contraband was procured from the petitioner who got manufactured Alprazolam of 8 kgs., through accused No.2. Thus, the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22 (c), read with 29 of NDPS Act.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no contraband has been seized by the Investigating Agency from the physical possession of the petitioner and he was roped basing on the statement of co-accused. Learned counsel asserted that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1" , it has been held that the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in evidence and the statements of co- accused cannot be determinative factor to conclude his involvement in the offence. By citing the authorities "State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs.Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another 2", "Union of India Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Vs.Mohammed Afzal " pleaded that in a case where the NCB preferred cancellation of bail against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in NDPS case, the petition was dismissed by observing that the legal position settled in "Tofan Singh Case" and the arrest made by NCB 1 2021 4 SCC 1 2 2022 Live Law (SC) 63 3 and the confessional statements of the accused are inadmissible. Further referred the authorities in "Balmukund Gupta @ Anshu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh" and Pradeep Mandal Vs.Narcotics Control Bureau of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Criminal Petition No.3285 of 2024 in support of the petitioner stand, granted bail in another Crime No.894 of 2023 of Shadnagar Police Station.
5. He further submits that there are other two crimes registered by Shadnagar Police Station, wherein bail was granted and in the crime of Madhapur Police Station, the petition was asserting showing possession of Alprazolam in commercial quantity. Howsoever, in the present case, as the indictment is based on the statement of the co-accused, in terms of dictum in "Tofan Singh Case" (supra) pleaded for enlarging him on bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail application and submits that the petitioner is instrumental in manufacturing the contraband and supply. He is facing 4 indictment in similar other offences before the Courts of different jurisdictions. Further, the investigation is under progress and many essential interfering aspects are to be considered in the investigation. Thus, granting bail may effect the process.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material placed on record.
8. The accusations against the petitioner is that, he is instrumental in getting manufacture of the contraband/Alprazolam in huge quantity of 08 kgs and circulated it. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been apprehended with more than commercial quantity of the contraband. In this backdrop and the stand of prosecution that the investigation is pending, the pleading that there is nothing against him on record except for the statement of co- accused, is not appealing. In the authorities referred by the petitioner, need of looking into corroborative evidence apart from the disclosure statement of the accused or co-accused has 5 been underlined. While the crime is under investigation and the prosecution is pleading that materials are being collected, excepting the prosecution to place those unverified materials or presuming that there cannot be any other evidence that may be secured by the prosecution would be premature. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the distinction can be drawn as to the prosecution relying on the statement of the co-accused or the statement of admission of the accused before the police under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to prove the charge, to that of initiation of proceedings and investigation basing on the statements of co-accused. In the present case, the situation is demonstrating that the case is at the stage of collection of evidence by the Investigating Agency, thus, conclusively making remark that there is no other material against the petitioner except for the statement of co- accused and drawing any presumption would be unjustified. In this view, as there are clear and severe allegations against the petitioner as to manufacturing and circulating of the 6 contraband, pending investigation coupled with the contemplation under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner for acceptance of bail, stand unconvincing.
9. For the aforesaid, in absence of merit, this petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.06.2024 Lpd 7 397 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2024 Date:06.06.2024 Lpd