Nathan Pal vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seeking regular bail in Crime No.348 of 2024 of G.R.P. Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

Heard arguments of Sri G.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

Perused the record.

F.I.R. in this case was registered on 11.10.2024. A.1 and A.2 were arrested and a total quantity of 25 kgs. of Ganja was recovered. They were remanded to judicial custody.

The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seek regular bail. The learned counsel for petitioners contends that what was recovered from each of the accused, if taken separately, would show that it was less than commercial quantity and in such view of the matter, presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not operate and considering the facts they may be released on bail.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Remand report discloses that from the possession of A.1 17 kgs. of Ganja was recovered. It further shows that from the possession of A.2, 8 kgs. of Ganja was recovered. In Kanneboina Ramesh v. The State of AP 2007 SCC Online AP 359, a learned Judge of this Court stated the principle that in those cases where recovery of Ganja from possession of each of the accused takes place what was recovered from each alone need consideration and not the total quantity. Applying the same principle, when one looks at the facts of the present case, it is clear that from each of the accused less than commercial quantity Ganja was recovered. Therefore, the presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not operate.

The petitioners have been in judicial custody for nearing 2½ months. Best part of the investigation seems to have been over.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that any continued detention does not seem necessary. Hence, prayer is granted.

In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in the following terms:

The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge – Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam and the petitioners are directed to furnish the sureties from the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the investigating officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

The petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as and when required and they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

The petitioners shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.

The petitioners must regularly participate in the pre-trial and trial process without fail before the competent Court.