Telangana High Court
Gundluru Raja Sekhar Reddy, vs The Intelligence Officer on 19 November, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Criminal Petition No.11213 of 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/A.1, for grant of bail in S.C.No.96 of 2017 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar at Hyderabad (arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/03/2016/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27-A, 28, 29 and 32-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act').
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotic Control Bureau representing the respondent and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 would contend that the petitioner/A.1 was remanded to judicial custody on 04.10.2016. More than two years have elapsed since the date of his remand. There is no nexus between the petitioner/A.1 and the alleged seizure of 231.015 kilograms of Amphetamine from the possession of A.2 and A.3 in this crime. There is no conspiracy between the petitioner/A.1 and the A.2 and A.3 in this crime for illegal manufacture and transportation of the contraband. The laptops and cell phones alleged to have been seized in this crime are of no relevance and do not exhibit any involvement of the petitioner/A.1 in the subject crime. A.3 in 2 this crime was granted regular bail by this Court, vide order, dated 15.03.2018, passed in Criminal Petition No.1828 of 2018 and ultimately prayed to allow the application.
4. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotic Control Bureau representing the respondent/complainant opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner/A.1 and contended that there are specific and grave allegations against the petitioner/A.1 with regard to criminal conspiracy and establishment of a laboratory to manufacture the contraband. The officials have seized 9.143 kilograms of Amphetamine from the rented premises of the petitioner/A.1. The allegations are specific and grave. Further, earlier bail application of this petitioner/A.1 was dismissed by the Court of Session. There are no changed circumstances. The gravity of the alleged offence is high. In view of the mandate given under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner/A.1 is not entitled for bail and ultimately prayed to dismiss the application.
5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this Criminal petition is whether the petitioner/A.1 is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
6. As per the record placed before this Court, on 30.09.2016, the police concerned apprehended two persons, i.e., A.2 and A.3 in this crime, and seized 221.015 kilograms of Amphetamine from their possession, under a cover of Panchanama. In the course of investigation, it has come up that the petitioner/A.1 is 3 the person behind the manufacture and illegal transportation of the said contraband and that on his instructions only, A.2 and A.3 were carrying on the said illegal activity. Subsequently, the petitioner/A.1 was arrested by the police concerned on 04.10.2016 and a cash of Rs.7.5 lakhs, 5 cell phones, a laptop and an external HDD were voluntarily submitted by the petitioner/A.1 to the police concerned. Further, 9.143 kilograms of Amphetamine was seized from the rented premises of the petitioner/A.1, i.e., H.No.156, Lane No.2, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. The petitioner/A.1 also revealed in his voluntary statement as to how he got acquaintance with the persons who were illegally manufacturing the contraband. He also gave details about the involvement of the other accused in this crime and also mentioned as to how he procured the contraband. The petitioner/A.1 clearly stated as to how he collected money from the proposed purchasers of the contraband. The petitioner/A.1 gave meticulous details of his induction in the process of illegal manufacture of the said contraband till he was apprehended for the same. In the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotic Control Bureau representing the respondent/ complainant that when the persons who were working in the rented premises of the petitioner/A.1 were examined, they identified the photograph of the petitioner/A.1 and stated about the petitioner/A.1 visiting the premises etc. All these circumstances establish that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner/A.1. The gravity of the offences alleged is high 4 and the punishment prescribed for the same is stringent. The petitioner/A.1 and the A.3, who was granted regular bail by this Court on an earlier occasion, are distinctly placed in this crime and therefore, the benefit extended to A.3 in this crime cannot be extended to the petitioner/A.1. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 19th November, 2018 Bvv