Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gunji Venkata Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 June, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3851 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This is an application filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ―Cr.P.C.‖) to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
2. The petitioner is A1 in crime No.254 of 2021 of Inkollu Police Station, Prakasham District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‗NDPS Act').
3. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of information on 30.08.2021, while Police were conducting vehicle check, they found A1 to A5 in suspicious condition and on seeing the Police, A1 to A3 escaped and Police apprehended A4 and A5. Further A4 and A5 confessed that A1 to A5 formed into a group under the leadership of A1 and A2 and they are doing Clandestine Noxious Marjuana (Ganja) business by transporting heavy quantity of ganja in specially designed vehicles. At the time of transporting ganja from Addanki via Chirala, Inkollu on Digamarru - Trovagunta highway road, the accused used one car as special pilot to the vehicle loaded with ganja. Further A1 and A2 followed the vehicle in Honda Amaze car bearing No.TS 04 EV 2424, A3 and A5 were in the ganja laden auto and A4 escorted the ganja vehicle. Police seized 150 packets of Cannabis weighing about 300 Kgs besides other material. Basing on the confession of A4 and A5, the petitioner is arrayed as A1.
2
4. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never committed the alleged offence and he was produced on P.T. warrant on 18.10.2021 and was sent to remand. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail since then and investigation is completed. He further submits that the petitioner never involved in offences of this nature and because of political rivalry, he is implicated in this crime. He further submits that other accused were enlarged on bail. Hence, the petitioner may be granted bail.
6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is habitual offender and earlier also he was involved in similar offences. He further submits that the petitioner was also accused in crime No.8 of 2018 of Medarametla Police Station and in crime No.12 of 2018 of Podili Police Station which were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B) of the NDPS Act. He also submits that suspect sheet was also opened in Medarametla Police Station vide sheet No.10. He submits that the petitioner is continuing his activity and the worth of seized ganja is Rs.24,00,000/-. He submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will again repeat the crimes of this nature and thus, prays to dismiss the petition.
3
7. I have given my anxious consideration and perused the record.
8. As can be seen from the record, the quantity of ganja seized from the possession of A4 and A5 in this crime is 300 Kgs, therefore bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the present case.
9. It is apt to look at the language employed in Section 37 of NDPS Act, which reads thus:
37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable -.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b)no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -
(i)the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.
10. The NDPS Act being a purposive enactment to curb the menace of narcotic and psychotropic substances, a special provision is incorporated to deal with grant of bail.
4
11. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
―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 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.'
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.
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.‖ 1 2007 (7) SCC 798 5
12. Thus, going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting bail, the Court has to see whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and whether he/she is likely to commit any offence while on bail, seriousness of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act have to be followed.
13. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and only basing on the confession made by A4 and A5 the petitioner was implicated in the crime.
14. In Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik2 it was held that absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
15. In the present case as per the remand report, petitioner is instrumental in transporting ganja. The previous antecedents of the petitioner also show the involvement of the petitioner in two other crimes of similar nature prima facie show that the petitioner is habitual in committing the offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(B) of the NDPS Act. Though, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that other accused were released and the petitioner is languishing in jail by virtue of his production on P.T. 2 2009 (2) SCC 624 6 warrant on 18.10.2021. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date :
IKN 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3851 OF 2022 Date :
IKN