Telangana High Court
Gudikadi Linga Goud, vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2024
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.')
seeking grant of regular bail.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.No.299 of 2023 on
the file of the Suraram Police Station, Balanagar, Hyderabad.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 25.12.2023, the
accused Nos.3 and 4 were apprehended while they were in
illegal possession of Alprazolam of 8 kgs. In the statement of
these accused, it was revealed that, the seized contraband was
procured from the petitioner who got manufactured
Alprazolam of 8 kgs., through accused No.2. Thus, the
petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 8(c)
read with 22 (c), read with 29 of NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no
contraband has been seized by the Investigating Agency from
the physical possession of the petitioner and he was roped
basing on the statement of co-accused. Learned counsel
asserted that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1" , it has been held
that the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will
remain inadmissible in evidence and the statements of co-
accused cannot be determinative factor to conclude his
involvement in the offence. By citing the authorities "State by
(NCB) Bengaluru Vs.Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and
another 2", "Union of India Narcotics Control Bureau,
Bengaluru Vs.Mohammed Afzal " pleaded that in a case
where the NCB preferred cancellation of bail against the order
of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in NDPS case, the
petition was dismissed by observing that the legal position
settled in "Tofan Singh Case" and the arrest made by NCB
2021 4 SCC 1
2022 Live Law (SC) 63
and the confessional statements of the accused are
inadmissible. Further referred the authorities in "Balmukund
Gupta @ Anshu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh" and
Pradeep Mandal Vs.Narcotics Control Bureau of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Criminal Petition No.3285
of 2024 in support of the petitioner stand, granted bail in
another Crime No.894 of 2023 of Shadnagar Police Station.
5. He further submits that there are other two crimes
registered by Shadnagar Police Station, wherein bail was
granted and in the crime of Madhapur Police Station, the
petition was asserting showing possession of Alprazolam in
commercial quantity. Howsoever, in the present case, as the
indictment is based on the statement of the co-accused, in
terms of dictum in "Tofan Singh Case" (supra) pleaded for
enlarging him on bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail
application and submits that the petitioner is instrumental in
manufacturing the contraband and supply. He is facing
indictment in similar other offences before the Courts of
different jurisdictions. Further, the investigation is under
progress and many essential interfering aspects are to be
considered in the investigation. Thus, granting bail may effect
the process.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
on both sides and perused the material placed on record.
8. The accusations against the petitioner is that, he is
instrumental in getting manufacture of the
contraband/Alprazolam in huge quantity of 08 kgs and
circulated it. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been
apprehended with more than commercial quantity of the
contraband. In this backdrop and the stand of prosecution
that the investigation is pending, the pleading that there is
nothing against him on record except for the statement of co-
accused, is not appealing. In the authorities referred by the
petitioner, need of looking into corroborative evidence apart
from the disclosure statement of the accused or co-accused has
been underlined. While the crime is under investigation and
the prosecution is pleading that materials are being collected,
excepting the prosecution to place those unverified materials
or presuming that there cannot be any other evidence that may
be secured by the prosecution would be premature. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the distinction can
be drawn as to the prosecution relying on the statement of the
co-accused or the statement of admission of the accused
before the police under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to prove
the charge, to that of initiation of proceedings and
investigation basing on the statements of co-accused. In the
present case, the situation is demonstrating that the case is at
the stage of collection of evidence by the Investigating Agency,
thus, conclusively making remark that there is no other
material against the petitioner except for the statement of co-
accused and drawing any presumption would be unjustified. In
this view, as there are clear and severe allegations against the
petitioner as to manufacturing and circulating of the
contraband, pending investigation coupled with the
contemplation under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court
finds that the prayer of the petitioner for acceptance of bail,
stand unconvincing.
9. For the aforesaid, in absence of merit, this petition is
dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this criminal petition shall stand closed.
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 06.06.2024
Lpd
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2024
Date:06.06.2024
Lpd
