Vasireddy Peddi Raju v. The State Of A.P

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3768 of 2017 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. 2) The offence alleged against him in Crime No.126/2017 of Ravulapalem Police Station, East Godavari District is under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act).

3) On receipt of credible information about transportation of ganja by the petitioner (A1) and other accused, on 28.09.2016 the Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem along with his staff reached NH-16 Road, Ravulapalem village and found the accused were in possession of 784 Kgs. of ganja in 23 bags worth Rs.23,52,000/-. Hence, the police arrested them and seized the contraband. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed that A1 purchased ganja through A2 and while transporting the same from agency Visakha District to Tuni in the Eicher Van of A3 and A4 the police arrested them. Hence, the charge.

4) Initially, petitioner/A1 along with other accused moved bail applications in Crl.P.No.277 of 2017 and batch and this Court by an elaborate order dated 08.02.2017 dismissed the batch of applications observing that the quantity of ganja involved in all the matters is

commercial quantity and the offence committed by them is punishable with imprisonment for a term more than five years and granting bail is an exception and negating bail is a rule and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court petitioners therein are not entitled to claim bail. This Court further observed that as the petitioners are in jail since long time, the Presiding Officers of the Courts dealing with the respective cases are directed to decide all the cases within four months, if charge sheets are filed. Thereafter, petitioner/A1 moved bail application in Crl.M.P.No.688 of 2017 which was dismissed by the trial Court observing that since the presence of petitioner/A1 is there at the place of seizure and as the commercial quantity of ganja has been involved, petitioner does not deserve bail. 5) Heard Sri P.Veeraju, learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and learned Public Prosecutor (AP).

6) Denying the allegations, learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner/A1 was never involved in the offence and he was falsely implicated in the case by picking him up from his house at about 7.30 PM on the alleged date of offence and he has been in custody since 28.09.2016. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed and A1has nothing to do with the offence. He thus prayed to grant bail.

7) Opposing the petition, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (AP) would submit though police completed investigation, commercial quantity of ganja has been seized therefore, bail may not be granted. 8) It is seen that commercial quantity of ganja was seized from the possession of accused and that was why considering the interdict imposed under Section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court in Crl.P.No.277 of 2017 and batch observed that the petitioner and other accused do not deserve bail and directed the trial Court to decide the cases, if charge sheets are filed, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of order. In that view, mere filing of charge sheet cannot be pleaded as ground by the petitioner for granting bail.

9) Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J Date: 07-06-2017 Murthy