AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.185 of 2022 of Ghatkeshwar Police Station, on bail.
Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the Respondent-State.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, during the course of his submission, reported that charge sheet is laid and the case is numbered as S.C.No.14 of 2023 and the same is pending before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially eking out his livelihood as Auto Driver, but subsequently got involved in a smuggling case and spent some time in jail. Later, he came into contact with Accused No.1 and agreed to transport Ganja. While he was transporting Ganja, he was apprehended by police and totally, 102 Kgs. of Ganja was seized from his possession.
Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.41745 of 2022 questioning the detention order issued and the consequential confirmation through a G.O and this Court has set-aside the detention order and also the G.O. and thereafter, the petitioner was set at liberty. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody for past ten (10) months and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that four other accused are also involved in this case and all of them are absconding.
The quantity of Ganja seized from the possession of the petitioner, as per the version of the prosecution, is commercial quantity. Therefore, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act comes into play. Only when the Court comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be believed to be true and that there is no likelihood of petitioner committing any further offence, he can be enlarged on bail. However, in the case on hand, prima facie case is projected against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be honoured.
Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.