Telangana High Court
Mandali Srinivasulu vs The Union Of India on 8 November, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9988 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 to enlarge
him on bail in NCB F.No.48/1/4/2023/NCB/SUB ZONE/HYD of
Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub-Zone.
2. On 11.04.2023, the NCB officials having received specific
information regarding three persons namely Srinivasulu,
Shivaprasad and Ramesh were trafficking ganja from Andhra
Pradesh were waiting on the Nehru Outer Ring on Vijayawada-
Hyderabad National Highway, Pedda Amberpet Toll Plaza. Around
6.30 a.m in the morning, two vehicles were stopped. The first
vehicle is Maruti Suzuki Swift car in which A1 was driving the car
and this petitioner was sitting in the passenger seat. Another
Mahendra Verito car was also stopped, which was being driven by
A3. The NCB officials conducted preliminary test and found that
bags in the car were found to be ganja.
3. From the Maruti Swift car, 42 kgs were recovered and from
the Verito car, 168 kgs. Since it was found that all the accused
were working together, the NCB officials have filed one complaint
against the accused reflecting the seizure as 210 kgs of ganja
from the accused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 would
submit that A2 was given a ride in the car and he did not have
knowledge about what was in the car. It cannot be said that when
the petitioner was found in the car, it amounts to conscious
possession of the ganja that was found in the car. The NCB
officials had committed error in clubbing both the seizures from
the Maruti Suzuki Swift car and Verito Car, without any basis.
Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court
in Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.5703 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021, wherein it is observed as
follows:
"11. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the
conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere
reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned
order dated 15th July, 2021. This is all the more so when such
reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh (supra). The
impugned order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and
the order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the learned Special
Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, is restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan
[A-1), since the chare sheet has already been filed and by now the
said accused has remained in custody for over a period of two years,
it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the
satisfaction of the trial Court."
5. The petitioner was found sitting in the passenger seat of the
car in which 42 kgs of ganja was found. The said contraband is
commercial quantity. As seen from the complaint, phone call
details inter se the accused was filed by the NCB along with the
complaint. In the application for bail, this Court cannot conclude
that the petitioner was given a ride by the driver of the car and he
had nothing to do with the contraband found in the car. It is a
question of knowledge of the petitioner and his association with
the other accused, which can only be decided during trial. Prima
facie, on the basis of the evidence produced by the NCB regarding
the phone calls in between the accused prior to they being caught,
it cannot be said that this petitioner was a stranger to the other
accused.
6. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case
wherein the accused No.4 in the said case was implicated only on
the basis of confession of other accused. In the present case, the
petitioner was physically found in the car and was arrested by the
officials. The facts of the case differ and the said judgment cited by
the learned counsel has no application in the facts of the present
case. The quantity being commercial quantity, this court is not
inclined to grant relief of bail.
7. Since the petitioner and other accused are in jail, the trial
Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously taking up the
case on day to day basis as contemplated under Section 309 of
Cr.P.C. The trial shall be concluded within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at
liberty to move for bail under changed circumstances.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.11.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9988 OF 2023
Dt.08.11.2023
kvs
