Soyam Veerababu vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 217 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 217 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2023

Telangana High Court

Soyam Veerababu vs The State Of Telangana on 18 January, 2023

Bench: D.Nagarjun

          THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.37 of 2023


ORDER:

This petition is filed seeking regular bail under Section

439 Cr.P.C., of A2, who has been in judicial custody since

09.12.2021 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b) of

the NDPS Act (for short, "the Act").

2. According to remand report, A1 to A3 decided to earn

money illegally by selling the contraband dry ganja. All of them

went to Orissa State, purchased 53 kgs of ganja from A4 and

A5, who were known to them earlier. On 09.12.2021, at about

6.30 a.m., while A1 and A2 on one motor cycle and A3 on

another mother cycle were proceeding to the concerned police,

who were organizing vehicle check, apprehended A1 and A2,

whereas A3, who was on another bike, has left the bike and ran

away. Police have seized 53 kgs of dry ganja, two motor cycles

and two mobile phones at the instance of A1 and A2 under the

cover of panchanama and a case was registered as FIR No.187

of 2021. On completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

confessionand recovery panchanama cannot be taken into

consideration as there were no independent witnesses and that

the said confession is contrary to Sections 42 and 43 of the Act.

It is submitted that the petitioner/A2 is from Orissa State and

he has no acquaintance with other accused and was falsely

implicated in the case and therefore, prayed for grant of bail.

4. In Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau,

Lucknow vs. Md. Nawaz Khan1 the Hon'ble Apex Court at

paras 18 and 19 has observed as under:

"18. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity are:

(i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and

(ii) There must exist "reasonable grounds to believe" that : (a) the person is not guilty of such an offence; and (b) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

19. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is "reasonable ground to believe" that the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of "reasonable grounds to believe", a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] , held that : (SCC pp. 801-02, paras 7-8 & 10-11)

"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

1 (2021) 10 SCC 100

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.'

[See MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497] , SCC p. 504, para 7 and Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532]

***

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. (See Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315])

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."

(emphasis supplied)"

5. Considering the above and taking into consideration

Section 37 of the Act, in order to consider the bail application of

the petitioner herein this Court requires to record a finding that

there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not

guilty of any offence and he is not also likely to commit any

offence in case if he is released on bail. This Court has gone

through the contents of the confessional statement, copy of the

FIR etc. On going through the same, this Court did not find any

infirmity in the process of investigation done by the respondent

with reference to the mandatory provisions of the Act, including

Sections 41, 42 and 50 (1) etc. Therefore, the petitioner cannot