Banothu Viswanadh, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [Special Original Jurisdiction] WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15661 OF 2016 Between:
Banothu Viswanadh ...
Petitioner/A-2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor [AP] High Court of Judicature for the State Of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...
Respondent Through the Station House Officer, Mothugudem Police Station, East Godavari district.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent:
Public Prosecutor [AP] The court made the following:
[order follows]
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15661 OF 2016 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-2 under section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 4 of 2016 of Mothugudem Police Station, East Godavari district, registered for the offences punishable under section 8 [c] read with section 20 [b] [ii] [c] of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/A2 submits that the Investigating Officer has not complied the mandatory provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, wherein it is specifically stated that prior information of transportation of narcotic substance shall be transmitted to the Senior Police Officer. However, in the present case, the Investigating Officer failed to do so, thus, the petitioner/A-2 is entitled for bail.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Investigating Officer transmitted the information on receipt of information of transportation of narcotic substance had communicated to Senior Police Officer, i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chintur, in writing.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is nowhere mentioned in the remand case diary.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has categorically submitted that the Investigating Officer had sent information to the Senior Police Officer on 24/1/2016 in writing and the said enclosure is attached with the remand case diary.
6. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner/A2.
7. Finding no merit, keeping in view the quantity of ganja weighing 927 Kgs seized from the petitioner/A2 in the present
case, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner/A2 on bail and the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand disposed of.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.
16/11/2016 I s L
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15661 OF 2016 Date: 16/11/2016 Circulation No. 89 Court Master: I s L