Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dake Sudhakar, Rajahmundry., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 29 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.402 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
DATE ORDER
No Note
14. 29.04.2022 VS, J
Crl.A.No.402 of 2017
Post the matter immediately after the paper book
is ready.
______
VS, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
The petitioner herein being the accused in NDPS
S.C.No.125 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Sessions
Judge for trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional
Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry,
has filed the present bail application.
Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for
petitioner/appellant has raised several grounds in the
bail application. But taking into consideration the fact
that the petitioner/appellant has been in judicial custody
since 23.05.2015, this Court feels that it is a fit case to
grant bail to the petitioner, as the petitioner has been in
judicial custody for more than seven years. As such, the
petitioner is entitled for bail, subject to the conditions
spelt out in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act as dealt in the
Judgment dated 12.10.2000 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dadu @ Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No.169 of 1999 and Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.243 of 1999).
Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the
judgment in the case of Mossa Koya KP vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) [reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3110], wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"6. ....... the High Court relied on the following
extract from the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Daler Singh v. State of
Punjab:
"29. We, therefore, feel that keeping in view the
spirit of Article 21, the following principles should
be adopted for the release of the prisoners (convicts)
on bail after placing them in different categories as
under:-
(i) Where the convict is sentenced for more than
ten years for having in his conscious possession
commercial quantity of contraband, he shall be
entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total
sentence of six years, which must include atleast
fifteen months after conviction.
(ii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years
for having in his conscious possession commercial
quantity of the contraband, he shall be entitled to
bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of
four years, which must include atleast fifteen
months after conviction.
(iii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years
for having in his conscious possession, merely
marginally more than non- commercial quantity, as
clarified in the table, he shall be entitled to bail if
he has already undergone a total sentence of three
years, which must include at least twelve months
after conviction.
(iv) The convict, who according to the allegations,
is not arrested at the spot and booked subsequently
during the investigation of the case but his case is
not covered by the offences punishable under
section 25, 27-A and 29 of the Act, for which in any
case the aforesaid clauses No.(i) to (iii) shall apply
as the case may be, he shall be entitled to bail if he
has already undergone a total sentence of two
years, which must include at least twelve months
after conviction."
12. We appreciate We appreciate the submission of
the Additional Solicitor General that offences
under the NDPS Act are of a serious nature and the
case is at the post conviction stage. Yet the Court
cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appellant
has undergone 8 years out of the total sentence of
10 years. The appeal is unlikely to be heard early.
In all probability, the entire sentence would have
been undergone by the time the appeal is heard.
The decisions on the basis of which the High Court
of Delhi has declined to grant suspension of
sentence, are, at the highest, a broad guideline and
cannot be placed on the same pedestal as a
statutory interdict. With the pendency of the work
in the High Court, it may not be feasible to expedite
the disposal of the appeal within a short period.
13 In the circumstances, particularly, since the
appellant has undergone 8 years out of ten years of
the total sentence which has been imposed on him,
we are of the view that a fit and proper case has
been made out for the suspension of the sentence
under Section 389 CrPC.
Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the execution of sentence of imprisonment
imposed against the petitioner in NDPS S.C.No.125 of
2015 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for trial
of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge,
East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, is ordered to be
suspended, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal
preferred by the petitioner. He shall be released on bail
on execution of self-bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to
the satisfaction of learned Special Judge for trial of
offences under NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.
______
VS, J
ARR
