Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gallori Chandra Rao Chandu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5392 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory
bail, by the petitioner/A1 in Cr.No.200 of 2021 of Kotauratla Police
Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 20 (b)(II)(C), 25 r/w. 8 (c) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act,
1985').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.08.2021,
on reliable information, Station House Officer, Kotauratla police
Station along with his staff conducted vehicle checking. At the time
of checking they stopped one car bearing No. DL2 FGA 0700 and
verified the dickey and found 48 kgs of Ganja and seized the above
said car, two cellphones and cash Rs.4,000/- under cover of
mediators report. Hence, the above crime was registered.
3. Heard Sri G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has
been stated in the grounds, contended that he has been falsely
implicated in the present crime basing on the confession statement
of A2 & A3. It is further contended that the police has not seized
anything from the petitioner. It is further contended that the
petitioner is the only person to look after his family members with
his meager income and in the event of his arrest, he will be put to
hardship and his reputation in the village will be affected. Hence,
prays this Court to consider this application.
5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
quantity involved in the present case is the commercial quantity
and attracts the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. He further
fairly submits that there are no antecedents against the petitioner.
In support of his contention, he relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in "UNION OF INIDA THROUHG NARCOTICS
CONTROL BUREAU, LUKNOW Vs. MD. NAWAZ KHAN"1. He
further submitted that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail,
he may hamper the process of investigation and tamper with the
prosecution evidence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for
dismissal of the same.
6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor draw the
attention of this Court to para Nos.35 and 36 in UNION OF
INIDA THROUHG NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUKNOW
Vs. MD. NAWAZ KHAN.2 which reads as follows:
"35. The impugned order of the High Court, apart from observing
that no contraband was found from the personal search of the
respondent has ignored the above circumstances. The High Court
has merely observed that : (Mohd. Nawaz Khan case, SCC online
All para 10)
10. In view of the above, the twin conditions contained
under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand satisfied. This
(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 100
(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 100
Court is of the view that if there is reasonable ground, the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
36. The High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements
and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the
issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established. In
failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes
unsustainable. Moreover, it has emerged, during the course of the
hearing that after the respondent was enlarged on bail he has
consistently remained away from the criminal trial resulting in the
issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. The High Court
ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of
the crime which it has failed to do".
7. The judgment referred by learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As
such the same cannot be taken into consideration.
8. Section 37 of NDPS Act reads as follows:
37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable -.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b)no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences
under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences
involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own
bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being
in force, on granting of bail.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and
material available on record and submissions made by both the
learned counsel and as there are no antecedents against the
petitioner and as there is no specific bar under Section 37 of
NDPS Act for granting bail, if it is a commercial quantity, as such
this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/ A1,
however the apprehension of the learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing the following conditions.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection
with Cr.No.200 of 2021 of Kotauratla Police Station,
Visakhapatnam District, on the petitioner executing a self bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like
sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer,
Kotauratla Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House
Officer, Kotauratla Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, twice in
a week i.e. on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m.
and 12.00 noon till filing of charge sheet.
(iii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper
with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to
the investigating officer whenever required by them to facilitate
proper investigation in this case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact
any witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall
be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall
not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the
investigation.
Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the
above conditions and if there is breach of any of the above
conditions, it will be viewed seriously and it also entails cancellation
of the bail and in such case prosecution shall move appropriate
application for such cancellation.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date : 22.08.2022
AG
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5392 OF 2022
Date : 22.08.2022
AG
