Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gunji Venkata Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 June, 2022

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI


                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3851 OF 2022

ORDER:-


        This is an application filed under Sections 437 and 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ―Cr.P.C.‖) to

enlarge the petitioner on bail.


2.      The petitioner is A1 in crime No.254 of 2021 of Inkollu Police

Station, Prakasham District, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 20(b) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‗NDPS Act').


3.      The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of information

on 30.08.2021, while Police were conducting vehicle check, they

found A1 to A5 in suspicious condition and on seeing the Police,

A1 to A3 escaped and Police apprehended A4 and A5. Further A4

and A5 confessed that A1 to A5 formed into a group under the

leadership of A1 and A2 and they are doing Clandestine Noxious

Marjuana (Ganja) business by transporting heavy quantity of

ganja in specially designed vehicles. At the time of transporting

ganja    from   Addanki   via   Chirala,   Inkollu   on   Digamarru   -

Trovagunta highway road, the accused used one car as special

pilot to the vehicle loaded with ganja. Further A1 and A2 followed

the vehicle in Honda Amaze car bearing No.TS 04 EV 2424, A3

and A5 were in the ganja laden auto and A4 escorted the ganja

vehicle. Police seized 150 packets of Cannabis weighing about 300

Kgs besides other material. Basing on the confession of A4 and A5,

the petitioner is arrayed as A1.
                                   2




4.    Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner never committed the alleged offence and he was

produced on P.T. warrant on 18.10.2021 and was sent to remand.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail

since then and investigation is completed. He further submits that

the petitioner never involved in offences of this nature and because

of political rivalry, he is implicated in this crime. He further

submits that other accused were enlarged on bail. Hence, the

petitioner may be granted bail.

6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that

petitioner is habitual offender and earlier also he was involved in

similar offences. He further submits that the petitioner was also

accused in crime No.8 of 2018 of Medarametla Police Station and

in crime No.12 of 2018 of Podili Police Station which were

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B) of

the NDPS Act. He also submits that suspect sheet was also opened

in Medarametla Police Station vide sheet No.10. He submits that

the petitioner is continuing his activity and the worth of seized

ganja is Rs.24,00,000/-. He submits that if the petitioner is

enlarged on bail, he will again repeat the crimes of this nature and

thus, prays to dismiss the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration and perused the

record.

8. As can be seen from the record, the quantity of ganja seized

from the possession of A4 and A5 in this crime is 300 Kgs,

therefore bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the

present case.

9. It is apt to look at the language employed in Section 37 of

NDPS Act, which reads thus:

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.

10. The NDPS Act being a purposive enactment to curb the menace

of narcotic and psychotropic substances, a special provision is

incorporated to deal with grant of bail.

11. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari1, the Hon'ble

Apex Court held as under:

―7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is ―reasonable grounds‖. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.

8. The word ―reasonable‖ has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word ―reasonable‖.

‗7. ... Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word ―reasonable‖. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy.'

10. The word ―reasonable‖ signifies ―in accordance with reason‖. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation.

11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.‖

2007 (7) SCC 798

12. Thus, going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

while granting bail, the Court has to see whether there are

reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed

the offence and whether he/she is likely to commit any offence

while on bail, seriousness of the offence punishable under the

NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug trafficking in

the country, stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS

Act have to be followed.

13. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner

and only basing on the confession made by A4 and A5 the

petitioner was implicated in the crime.