Telangana High Court
Kavas Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 December, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10433 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Ravula Sowmya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-State.
2. Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in SC.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal at Hanumakonda, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
3. Making her submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and he is in judicial custody since 05.01.2022 and small quantity of ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also states that the total quantity of ganja seized, as per the version of the prosecution, is 23 kgs and the said contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, if the same is divided into two equal parts, it comes to 11.5 kgs 2 Dr CSL, J Crl.P.No.10433 of 2022 per head, which is less than commercial quantity and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
4. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner is a drug peddler and he along with accused No.1 went to Paloncha and purchased 23 kgs of ganja for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- per kg, packed the same and while they were heading towards Surat, they were caught by Police. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature.
5. In the decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Hira Singh Vs.Union of India1, overruling the earlier decision that is rendered in E.Micheal Raj Vs.Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even the quantity of neutral substance should not be excluded. Such being the mandate, it is not desirable to split up the contraband seized for each head. In the case on hand, the total quantity seized is commercial quantity and thus, as per the mandate of Section 1 Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2017 2 (2008) 5 SCC 161 3 Dr CSL, J Crl.P.No.10433 of 2022 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.01.2022, this Court considers it desirable to direct the trial Court to dispose of the Sessions Case time bound.
6. This Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal at Hanumakonda, is directed to expedite the trial in S.C.No.35 of 2022 that is pending on its file and see that the said case is disposed of within four months. In case, the said Session Case is not disposed of within the stipulated period, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application for grant of bail.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 01.12.2022 dr