Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Patchikarla Srinu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 June, 2021

 

[3240]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
: PRESENT: *
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1784 OF 2021

   
  

Between:
Patchikarla Srinu, S/o. Apparao, aged 30 years, R/o. Ratnampeta Village. \R

Mandal, Visakhapainam District. é
Petitioneriade :

AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
Respondent/Complainant

Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances
stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be
pleased to release the petitioner on bail in NDPS SC No. of 2021 on Cr.No.426/2020
Rolugunta Police Station

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds
filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI MEDIS!] RATNA RAO
Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the
Court made the following.

ORDER:

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1784 of 2021

ORDER:-

This 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/Accused in connection with Crime No.426 of 2020 of Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 2O0(b)fii}(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS

Act").

2. The case of prosecution is that on 30.12.2020 on credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station along with his staff and mediators reached MPP School Junction, Vaddipa Village of Ruolugunta Mandal and while checking the vehicles, they noticed petitioner and seized 60 KGs of dry ganja while transporting the same in an Auto bearing registration No.AP 31 TC 0644 under the cover of mediators' report. Basing on the said mediators' report, police registered the crime and sent the accused to judicial custody

on the same day.

3. Heard Sri Medisi Ratna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused submits that the alleged contraband is not seized from the possession of the petitioner and that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. He further

submits that petitioner is arrested on 30.12.2020 and since then he

eee

has been languishing in jail. Though 180 days elapsed, police neither filed charge sheet nor filed any application seeking extension of time as contemplated under Section S6(A) of the NDPS Act. He further submits that as police failed to file charge sheet within 180 days, the

petitioner is entitled for default bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that already entire investigation is completed and they are awaiting for RFSL report. He also not disputed the fact that petitioner is languishing in jail from the last 180 days, but police did not file any application

seeking extension of time.

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

(a) 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;

{ec} 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

at we ant

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 complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized 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 thé'poHce. bevond the period of fifteen

days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no

ALA nee ete nnn can etree ns

Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

(i} 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:

{ii} 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 XXXII 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 Il.- 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! bas 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 stipulated under Article (21 of the Constitution. When the law provides 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

* (2001)5 SCC 453 weet

not be in accordance 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 petitioner is 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/ Accused shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.426 of 2020 of Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District on execution of

2 9020 SCC OnLine SC 529

pose F

pees

self bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District once in a week between 10.00

AM and 1.00 PM till completion of trial.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

Spl- CHITTIJOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SEN SEFICER , PYII SECTION @ TRUE CO a

To,

™ 4. The Additional Judicial

. . t p z UV p

ion. Visakhapatnam Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station, ~ 3. The Stat

~g, One spare copy

rsipainam, First Class Magistrate Court at Narsip

HIGH COURT