Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jarpula Vinod Nayak vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 February, 2021

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

N\

Ca

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

        
 
  

TUESDAY, THETWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY A
ONE (ord
: PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRL.P.No. 468 of 2021

Between:-
Jarpula Vinod Nayak, S/o. Veerayya.

AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, through SHO, Narsipatnam Prohibition &

Excise P.S, Visakhapatnam District, rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Amaravati.

veees Respondent.

Petition filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the |
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,
the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on
bail in Crime No. 512/2020 on the file of Narsipatnam Prohibition & Excise

P.S., Visakhapatnam District.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public
Prosecutor on behalf of respondent/State, the Court made the following

ORDER :-
 

 

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Criminal Petition No.468 of 2021
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A-1 in connection with Crime No.512 of 2020 of Narsipatnam Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Visakhapatnam 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

brevity "NDPS Act").

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2020 on credible information about the illegal transportation of ganja, the respondent police rushed to Pedapeta Junction, Rolugunta Mandal and while conducting vehicle check, they found a Tata Intra V20 BCIV bearing No.TS 09 CYTR 2481, but inmates of the vehicle on seeing the police tried to escape from the spot, but the police caught hold of them. On searching the vehicle, the police seized 200 KGs of ganja, arrested the petitioners and

remanded to judicial custody.

3. Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail from the last 184 days. But the police neither filed the charge sheet nor filed any application seeking extension of time though 180 days elapsed as

contemplated under Section 36(A) of the NDPS Act. He further

oP Aen

submits that as the police failed to file the charge sheet within

180 days, the petitioner is entitled for default bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that huge quantity i.e. 200 KGs of contraband is seized from the possession of the petitioner. However, he also does not dispute the fact that even after lapse of 180 days, neither the police filed charge sheet nor an application seeking extension of time before the Court below

as contemplated under Section 36(A) of the NDPS Act.

6. Section 36(A) of the NDPS Act reads thus:

36A. Offences triable by Special Courts. --

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;

(b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate: Provided that in cases which are triable by the Special Court where such Magistrate considers--

(i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or

(li) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him, that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction;

(c) the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section;

(d) a Special Court may, upon perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon

TERT

complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in his behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.

(2) When trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under cluase (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section included also a reference to a "Special Court" constituted under section 36.

_ (4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days': Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offences punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than three years may be tried summarily.]

Section 167 (2)of Cr.P.C reads thus:

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that-

(a) ' the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused

person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- A

mal

Gi) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(i) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released, on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]

(b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police. ' Explanation L.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail;].?

Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature

on the order authorizing detention.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v.State of Maharashtra! has observed that personal liberty is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof, as jstipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the law "vite that the Magistrate could authorize the detention of the accused in custody upto a maximum period as indicated in the proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, any further detention

beyond the period without filing of a challan by the investigating

agency would be a subterfuge and would not be in accordance

----

' (2001)5 SCC 453

with law and inconformity with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, and as such, could be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment in S.Kasi v. State? wherein it was observed that the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) is an integral part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and the said right to bail cannot be suspended even during a pandemic situation as is prevailing currently. It was emphasized that the right of the accused to be set at liberty takes precedence . over the right of the State to carry on the investigation and submit a charge sheet. Additionally, it is well settled that in case of any ambiguity in the construction of a penal statute, the Courts must favour the interpretation which leans towards protecting the rights of the accused, given the ubiquitous power disparity between the individual accused and the State machinery. This is applicable not only in the case of substantive penal statutes but also in the case of procedure

providing for the curtailment of the liberty of the accused.

9. In view of the foregoing reasons as the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period of 180 days nor any application seeking extension of time is filed, the petitioners are entitled for statutory bail, which is an indefeasible right of the accused as

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/ A-1 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of self

bonds for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two on

coe

2.9020 SCC OnLine SC 529

sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. On such release, the petitioner shall \ appear before the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Police \ Station, Visakhapatnam District once in a month till completion

of trial.

11. This Court observed that even. in cases where huge quantity of contraband is seized, the police are not vigilant in conducting investigation and filing charge sheet within 180 days. They are not even seeking extension of time for filing

charge sheet, as such, this Court in several cases granting bail |

to the accused as they are entitled for default bail. In these types of grave offences police are not expected to act in such a negligent manner. The Director General of Police shall take appropriate steps and issue guidelines to the Investigating Officer wherever it is found that the police failed to seek extension of time for filing the charge sheet and any other lapses

appropriate action shall be initiated.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

a a me ne een RN

shall stand closed. Sd/-Ch,V.Subramany a-Sarma pean, AR

/TRUE COPY! / SECTION OFFICER / MeN

for

um-| Additional District & Sessions fences under NDPS Act,

To .

4.The Metropoli

Judge-Spec s<akhapatnam District.

Visakhapatnam. Magistrate, Narsipatna, Vt ict. i ice, Manga ae 'nibition & Excise

3.The Direct Ouse Officer, Narsipatnam Prohi