Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nabaru Satti Babu vs Sthe Stattion Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ~ *: WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY_-- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI~ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 760 OF 2021 Between: oO Nabaru Satti Babu, S/o Rajubabu, aged about 49 years, B.B. patnam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhaptanam District. ...Petitioner/Accused-1_ AND The Station of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant~ Petition under Sectiong437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances Stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.339 of 2020 of Rolugunta Police Station Visakhapatnam on the file the Additional District and Sessions judge-Cum- Special Judge for Trail of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act-case at Visakhapatnam, ~~ The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following. --- ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Criminal Petition No.760 of 2021 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A.1 in connection with Crime No.339 of 2020 of Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act").
2. The case of prosecution is that on 13.08.2020, on receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station, on securing the presence of mediators and a Gazetted Officer, rushed to Peddapeta bus stop, M.K. Patnam _ Panchayat of Rolugunta Mandal at 10.00A.M. and found one person stayed there with two gunny bags and on seeing the police, he tried to escape by leaving gunny bags and the police apprehended him and on interrogation, he confessed that he transporting the ganja illegally and the police seized 40kgs of ganja from the possession of the petitioner and arrested the petitioner on 13.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody.
3. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel forthe petitioner/A.1 submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the present crime and he has 2 | LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021 been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2020 and since then, he is languishing in jail. He further submits that the police failed to file charge sheet even after lapse of 180 days. He submits that as per Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, the police have to file the charge sheet within 180 days. He submits that in this case, the police neither filed any application seeking extension of time nor filed charge sheet. As such, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the police failed to file charge sheet within 180 days nor made any application seeking extension of time.
6. Section 36A of the NDPS Act reads thus:
"36A. Offences triable by Special Courts: (/) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) all offences under this Act which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government;
(b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under subsection (2) or sub- section (2A) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate:
Provided that in cases which are triable by the Special Court where such Magistrate considers
(i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or EO 3 LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021
(ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him, that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction;
(c) the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section;
(d) a Special Court may, upon perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in his behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.
(2) When trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section included also a reference to a "Special Court" constituted under section 36.
(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days":
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offences punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of not more than theee years may be tried summarily."
Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C reads thus:
4 LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021 "(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;
and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that-
(a)' the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-
section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXII for the purposes of that Chapter; ] (6) no Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police.' Explanation L.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail;].?
Explanation IL.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention."
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v.State of Maharashtra! has observed that personal liberty is one of cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and a 1 (2001)5 SCC 453 5 LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021 deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof, as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the law provides that the Magistrate could authorize the detention of the accused in custody up to a maximum period as indicated in the proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, any further detention beyond the period without filing of a challan by the investigating agency would be a subterfuge and would not be in accordance with law and inconformity with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, and as such, it could be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment in S.Kasi v. State? wherein it was observed that the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. is an integral part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the said right to bail cannot be suspended even during a pandemic situation as is prevailing currently. It was emphasized that the right of the accused to be set at liberty takes precedence over the right of the State to carry on the investigation and submit a charge sheet. Additionally, it is well settled that in case of any ambiguity in the construction of a penal statute, the Courts must favour the interpretation which leans towards protecting the rights of the accused, given the ubiquitous power disparity between the individual accused and the State machinery. This is applicable not only in the case of substantive penal statutes but also in the * 2020 SCC OnLine SC 529 | 6 | LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021 case of procedure providing for the curtailment of the liberty of the accused.
8, In view of the foregoing reasons, as the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period of 180 days as contemplated under Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail, which is an indefeasible right of the accused as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A.1 shall be enlarged on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
10. This Court observed that even in cases where huge quantity of contraband is seized, the police are not vigilant in conducting investigation and filing charge sheet within 180 days. They are not even seeking extension of time for filing charge sheet, as such, this Court in several cases granting bail to the accused as they are entitled for default bail. In these type of grave offences, the police are not expected to act in such a negligent manner. The Director General of Police shall take appropriate steps and issue guidelines to the Investigating Officer, wherever it is found that the police failed to seek extension of time for filing the charge sheet and any other lapses appropriate action shall be initiated.
ag osc ae canta at 7 LK, J CRLP.No.760 of 2021 The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh.
| gg/-M.RameshBabu | ASSISTANT REGISTRAR UAola~_ a ) [ITTRUE COPY!/ SECTION OFFICE To,
4. The Additional District and Sessions judge-Cum- Special Judge for Trail of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act-case at Visakhapatnam.
The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri Police Head Quarters, Mangalagiri Guntur Distirct.
The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. --
The Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station Visakhapatnam. ~ One CC to Sri. Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate [OPUC] ~ Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] _-
_ One spare copy.
NOARWO N = "
tw o HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:17/02/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.760 of 2021 DIRECTION 20 FEB 2021