Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Malothu Raju, Karimnagar Dt ., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
-HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE : CRLA.No.1025 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
VJP,J
21.03.2023
I.A.No.1 of 2021
The petitioner herein being the accused
No.1 in NSC No.16 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Special Judge to try the offences under
NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District and
Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Visakhapatnam District, has filed the
present bail application.
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 for the last five years and eight
months, this Court feels that it is a fit case to
grant bail to the petitioner, 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 submits that
the conduct of the petitioner in jail is
satisfactory and to that effect, written
instructions received from the Jail
Superintendent also filed. The 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 of commercial
quantity of contraband, he shall be
entitled to bail if he has already
undergone a total sentence of six
years, which must include at least
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 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 Cr.P.C.
As seen from the record, the petitioner
has been in judicial custody from the date of
the judgments i.e., from 21.07.2017.
Therefore, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the execution of
sentence of imprisonment imposed against the
petitioners in NSC No.16 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Spl. Judge to try offences under
NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District & Sessions
Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Visakhapatnam District, 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 local sureties each for a like sum each to
the satisfaction of Spl. Judge to try offences
under NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District &
Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Visakhapatnam District.
If the petitioner has any passport, he
shall deposit the same before the trial Court.
He shall appear before the trial Court first
Monday of every month between 10.30 am to
05.00 pm. In case of any violation of these
conditions, the bail shall stand cancelled. In
case of any violations of the above conditions,
the learned Spl. Judge to try offences under
NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District & Sessions
Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Visakhapatnam District, is requested to inform
the High Court for cancellation of the bail.
_________
VJP, J
Note: Issue CC today.
B/o
eha
