Mohd Waseem vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 9231 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mohd Waseem vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 October, 2024

APHC01041165202
      4                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                       PRADESH                        [345
                                    AT AMARAVATI                       7]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)


                FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6607 OF 2024

Between:

Mohd Waseem and Others                             ...PETITIONER/A-1 to A.3

                                     AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh                ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioners/A.1 to A.3: Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutharaju

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Ld. Public Prosecutor

The Court made the following order:

1. This criminal petition is filed under Sections 480 & 482 of BNSS 2023

(old Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C.) seeking to enlarge the

petitioners/A.1 to A.3 on regular bail in crime No.169 of 2024 of

Vizianagaram Rural Police Station, registered for the offences under

Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. The petitioners, on the allegation of possession of the narcotic

substance, have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

19.08.2024. The total quantity of contraband seized from the petitioners

is 22.785 grams.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compliance of

the procedure contemplated under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act was

not carried out by the investigating officer.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor submits that

the procedure contemplated under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act has

been complied and the F.S.L. report is awaited. That apart, petitioners 2

& 3 are the residents of New Delhi and petitioner No.1 is the resident of

Uttar Pradesh and the investigation is still in the process.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the

judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Crl.P. No.3303 of

2024.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that while adjudicating the

criminal petitions, the theory of precedence cannot be followed as a

straight jacket formula, and the Court would take into consideration the

particular facts of each case.

8. Considering the facts of this case and the stage of investigation, this

Court is not inclined to grant bail.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV