Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kosetti Arjuna Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 2021
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.871 OF 2021
Between:
1. Kosetti Arjuna Rao, S/o Latchanna
2. Gurturti Mohana Venkatesh @
Mohana Venkata Raju, S/o Appa Rao
... Petitioners/A.4 & A.5
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by
its Inspector of Police, Anaparthi Circle,
through Public Prosecutor,
High Court Bldgs Amaravati.
... Respondent/Complainant
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22nd March, 2021.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN :
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers :
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reports/Journals?
3 Whether Their Lordship wish to see the : Yes/No
fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
2
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.871 of 2021
% 22-03-2021
# 1. Kosetti Arjuna Rao, S/o Latchanna
2. Gurturti Mohana Venkaesh @ Mohana
Venkata Raju
... Petitioners/A.4 & A.5
vs.
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep by its Inspector of Police
Anaparthi Circle, through
Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings
Amaravati.
... Respondent/Complainant
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Y. Ramatirtha
^Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred :
1. (2020) 12 SCC 122
2. 1999 (9) SCC 429
3. (1990) 1 SCC 95
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.871 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail to the petitioners in connection with
Crime No.230 of 2020 on the file of Anaparthi Police Station, East
Godavari District registered for the offence punishable under
Section 8(c) read with 20(b) (ii) (c) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"), in
which, the petitioners are shown as the A.4 and A.5.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.11.2020 on
receipt of credible information about the illegal transportation of
Ganja, the Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi police Station caught
hold of the accused No.1 to 6 while they were found in possession
of 88.07 kgs of Ganja in 46 plastic packets and the same was
recovered under the cover of mediators report.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.4 & A.5 contends
that the petitioners/A.4 & A.5 have been arrested on 04.11.2020
and ever since they have been languishing in the jail. They have
also moved an application in Crl.M.P.No.1342 of 2020 before the I
Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge for NDPS
Cases) Rajamahendravaram seeking grant of bail under Section
439 Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed on merits vide its order
4
dated 26.11.2020. Learned counsel further contends that the
above said seized ganja was not recovered from the petitioners and
they are falsely implicated in the above said crime and accordingly
sought for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends
that the quantity involved in the above said crime is huge and it is
a commercial quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the
bail cannot be granted to the petitioners at this stage. He also
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
State of Kerala and others vs Rajesh and others1, specifically
referring to at paras 19 and 20, which reads as under:
"19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed
while considering the application for bail moved by the Accused
involved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh
and Ors2 , it has been elaborated as under:
7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate
is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind
that in a murder case, the Accused commits murder of one or two
persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are
instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number
of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious
effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the
society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they
would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in
intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit
involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to
punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the
adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy.,
Union Territory of Goa3 as under:
24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised
activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal
1
(2020) 12 SCC 122
2
1999(9) SCC 429
3
(1990) 1 SCC 95)]
5
trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction
among a sizeable Section of the public, particularly the adolescents and
students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and
alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to
effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming
devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on
the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective
provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory
minimum imprisonment and fine.
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market,
Parliament has provided that the person Accused of offences under the
NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the
mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Accused is
not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are
satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not
abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the
Respondent-Accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view
of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which
would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court
should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due
deliberation, has amended.
20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power
to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained Under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but is also subject to
the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-
obstante clause. The operative part of the said Section is in the negative
form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person Accused of
commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are
satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court
must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not
satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
6
as referred above, this Court has not found any merit in this
criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_______________________
B.KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
Date : 22-03-2021
Note : L.R. copy to be marked.
(b/o)Gvl
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.871 of 2021
Date : 22-03-2021
Gvl
