Akkapalli Sudhakar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3626 AP

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3735 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 petitioners/A2 and A3 in connection with crime No.43 of 2021 of

Golugonda Police Station, Visakhapatnam District registered for the

offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 r/w 8(c) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity

"NDPS Act").


2.   The case of prosecution is that on 16.03.2021 on receiving

credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, Sub-

Inspector of Golugonda Police Station along with his staff and

mediators went to Bridge near Polavaram Village of Golungonda

Mandal and while checking the vehicles, Police found 120 Kgs of

ganja in four gunny bags. The Police seized said ganja under the

cover of mediators‟ report. Basing on the said report, the present

crime is registered in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3.

The petitioners were     arrested and    remanded to custody on

16.03.2021


3.   Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above

crime is registered for offence punishable under 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c)

of the NDPS Act on the allegation that the petitioners were found in

possession of 120 Kgs of ganja and the petitioners were arrested and

remanded to judicial custody on 16.03.2021. He submits that as the

Police failed to complete the investigation within the time stipulated,

they filed an application before the Court below seeking extension of

time, but the same was dismissed by order dated 27.08.2021 i.e. on

169th day from the date of arrest of the petitioners and today is 189 th

day. He submits that though the application seeking extension of

time was dismissed, Police have not preferred any revision against

the said order and the petitioners are languishing in jail since 189

days, as such petitioners are entitled for default bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that Police are taking steps to file revision against order

dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Court below.

6. This Court observed that in some cases extension petitions are

being filed at the fag end i.e. on 178th or 179th day and in some

cases, they are filed on 165th or 166th day and in many cases such

extension petitions are dismissed. Even after lapse of 180 days, order

copies are not furnished, as such Police are unable to file revision

before this Court. Though huge quantity of contraband is seized in

this crime, since 180 days have elapsed, this Court is constrained to

grant default bail to the accused.

7. 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

(ii) 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 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.]

8. 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) 1 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,-

(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 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. 1 Explanation I.- 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;]. 2

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.

9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya

v.State of Maharashtra1 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 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

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. State2 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

(2001)5 SCC 453

2020 SCC OnLine SC 529

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.

10. In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration

the fact that the petition filed by the Police seeking extension of time

was dismissed and the petitioners are languishing in jail since 189

days, they 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.

11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor shall file counter before

this Court stating reasons for not preferring revision against the

dismissal order passed by learned Judge dismissing the extension

petition facilitating the accused to get default bail.

12. Accordingly, the petitioners/A2 and A3 shall be enlarged on

bail in connection with crime No.43 of 2021 of Golugonda Police

Station, Visakhapatnam District on their execution of self bond for

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for a

like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Additional

Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam. On such

release, the petitioners/A2 and A3 shall appear before the Station

House Officer, Golgugonda Police Station, Visakhapatnam District

once in a week between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM, till completion of

trial.

Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Director

General of Police.

Post next week.

___________________________

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date: 20.09.2021

IKN

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(allowed)

regular

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3735 of 2021

20.09.2021

IKN