Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bobbili Bajaji Alias Surala Balaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 August, 2019
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
CIMINAL PETITION No.4108 of 2019
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in NDPS SC.No.112 of 2018 (F.No.DRI/HZU/VIRU/48/ENQ-01 (INT/NIL) 2018 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Vijayawada, for the offence under Sections 8(c) R./w Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act.
Heard, Sri K. Pridhvi Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Counter was also filed on behalf of the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially argued that the petitioner is only a driver and that he has absolutely no knowledge about the transportation of the Ganja particularly in the Cargo vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the services of the petitioner were engaged by A.5 and that he only driving the vehicle. The petitioner was offered a sum of Rs.10,000/- for driving the truck and he accepted the same because he was in need of money. Learned counsel submits that other than that, nothing can be attributed to the present petitioner. Therefore, he submits that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, as the main accused are already apprehended.
2
In reply to this, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is actively involved in the transportation of the Ganja. According to him, a special hidden chamber was created in side the vehicle wherein the Ganja was placed. The petitioner is very much aware of the fact that he was transporting Ganja. In the counter it is clearly said basing on the statement given by A.6 himself that he was aware that Ganja was being transported in the truck and that his services were engaged for the purpose of transportation of the Ganja itself. He also points out that A.7 in his statement has also stated that as per the instructions of A.6, he boarded the truck and that he along with A.6 transported the Ganja. He also points out that A.6 was in custody only since 19.05.2019. On 07.01.2018 when the incident occurred the present petitioner/A.6 managed to escape and after more than one year he was apprehended. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor points out that it is not correct to state that the petitioner has been in custody since then. He clearly submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner was aware of the transportation of the Ganja and the total quantity seized is 594.62 kgs, the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act squarely applies and that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
This Court has perused the counter that is filed and remand report that is also part of the bail application that is filed wherein it is clearly mentioned that A.6 and A.7 admitted 3 that there is a false chamber within the vehicle and that in the false chamber the entire quantity of 594.62 kgs., of Ganja was found. The statement of A.7 also clearly shows that he and A.6 are aware of the fact that they were transporting the Ganja which was concealed in the vehicle. In that view of the matter, as the quantity is far above the commercial quantity, this Court is of the opinion that the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. No other circumstances that would entitle the petitioner to seek bail have been pointed out. In that view of the matter, the request of the petitioner is rejected.
Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 07.08.2019 PGR