Pypalli Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7756 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7756 AP
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pypalli Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 October, 2022

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8001 OF 2022

ORDER:-

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular

bail, by the petitioner/sole accused in Crime No.339 of 2022 of

Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered

for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS

Act, 1985').

2.     The   case    of   the   prosecution,   in   brief,   is   that   on

28.08.2022,         on    reliable    information,       Sub-Inspector,

Anandapuram Police Station along with staff and mediator

reached Vasavi layout, Vellanki village and found accused having

brown colour plastic bag. On seeing the police in the uniforms,

the accused was tried to run away, the police caught the

accused. Then the staff got opened the plastic bag and found

contraband ganja and seized the same. Hence, the present

crime was registered.

3.     Heard Sri Bilaal Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration,

contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the

present crime. It is further contended that informant and

investigation officer is one and the same, as such the

investigation may not leads to a fair investigation. It is further

submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his

entire family and if the petitioner is not granted bail, the

petitioner and his family members will be put to a great

hardship. Hence, prays this Court to consider this application.

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that

the informant and investigation officer may be one and the

same but the investigation is fair or not has to be decided at the

time of trial. In support of his contention, he relied upon the

judgment in the case of Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of

Delhi)1. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved

in other similar crimes and if the petitioner was granted bail, he

may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may indulge

in similar offence. Hence, opposed the petition and prayed for

dismissal of the same.

(2020) 10 SCC 120

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Mukesh Singh v.

State (NCT of Delhi)2 where in it is held that:

"As regards the submission on behalf of the accused that so far as the NDPS Act is concerned, it carries a reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54 and therefore if the informant who himself has seized the offending material from the accused and he himself thereafter investigates the case, there shall be all possibilities of apprehension in the mind of the accused that there shall not be fair investigation and that the officer concerned shall try to prove his own version/seizure and therefore there shall be denial of the "fair investigation" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is required to be noted that whether the investigation conducted by the informant concerned was fair investigation or not is always to be decided at the time of trial. The informant/investigator concerned will be cited as a witness and he is always subject to cross-examination. There may be cases in which even the case of the prosecution is not solely based upon the deposition of the informant/informant-cum-investigator but there may be some independent witnesses and/or even the other police witnesses".

7. In view of the referred judgment the contention of the

petitioner that if the informant and investigation officer are one

and the same and investigation may not be fair cannot be

considered at this stage.

8. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the

contentions of the both learned counsel and material available

on record and by taking the antecedents of the accused and the

(2020) 10 SCC 120

possibility of repeating similar or other offences while on bail,

this Court feels that this is not a fit case to grant bail.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,