Nandipindi Lovaraju v. The State

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7584 of 2017 ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5, under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.16 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Prathipadu Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that nothing is seized from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that on 30.07.2017 the investigating officer seized 23 kgs., of ganja from the possession of accused Nos.4 and 5, who intended to supply the same to other accused.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2017 the prosecution officer seized 23 kgs., of ganja from the possession of the petitioner and A4. The investigating officer after completion of necessary formalities produced the petitioner before the Court concerned for judicial custody. While deciding the petition filed under Sections 437 and 439

Cr.P.C., the Court has to consider whether there is any prima facie material or not against the petitioner. The present petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. The crime was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act. While deciding the petitions of this nature, the Court shall not lost sight of Section 37 of the Act. A perusal of the record reveals that the ganja seized is 23 kgs. It is not in dispute the ganja seized is a commercial quantity. A perusal of the record prima facie reveals the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence. A perusal of the record also reveals that the petitioner involved in similar type of cases.

4.

In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is placing reliance on the following decisions;

i) In State of M.P. v. Kajad1, the Hon'ble apex Court held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

5. ... ... The purpose for which the Act was enacted and the menace of drug trafficking which it intends to curtail is evident from its scheme. A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not 1 (2001) 7 SCC 673

guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for. (ii) In Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira2, the Hon'ble apex Court at paragraph No.7 as follows:

7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accused-respondent is concerned, are:

the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. ... ...

(iii) The Hon'ble apex Court reiterated the same principle in Union of India v Sanjeev V. Deshpande3.

As per the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, the court can grant bail to the persons involved in the cases under the NDPS Act, if it satisfies that there are reasonable grounds for 2 (2004) 3 SCC 549 3 (2014) 13 SCC 1

believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and even if the accused is released on bail, he will not involve in similar type of offences.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J 13th September, 2017 Rns