Vadithya Hanman Naik vs State Of Telangana

Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the Respondent-State.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is filed praying for regular bail in respect of the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in NDPS.S.C.No.46 of 2022 that is pending before the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal.

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is the second application moved for grant of bail and the earlier application stood dismissed on the ground of pendency of investigation. Learned counsel states that on completion of investigation, charge sheet is also laid and therefore, in the changed circumstances, bail may be granted. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner is suffering from ill-health and the jail authorities are not providing proper and sufficient treatment and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail atleast on that ground.

Opposing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is involved in procuring and transporting huge quantity of Ganja. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that in case the petitioner is not provided with proper treatment, he had got the remedy of moving an application before the concerned Court seeking for directions to the concerned authorities to provide proper treatment, but he is not entitled for bail on the ground of ill-health.

The case of the prosecution as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet is that the petitioner purchased one Bolero Trolley and used to run the same for Hire. However, as he could not earn sufficiently, he, along with Accused No.2, planned to procure dry Ganja and earn money by selling the same at a higher price. Accordingly, they purchased dry Ganja at Bhadrachalam and while they were transporting the same in the Trolley of the petitioner, the vehicle was intercepted. The petitioner was caught hold. But, Accused No.2 managed to escape. Police seized 555 Kgs of dry Ganja worth Rs.55,50,000/-

The allegations, thus levelled, as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, are grave in nature. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the procedural irregularities of the police, record reveals absence of any such grave irregularities for this Court to take into consideration for enlarging the petitioner on bail. The length of custody or filing of charge sheet are not the relevant factors to be taken into consideration in the light of mandate under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Only when the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no sufficient material for connecting the accused with the crime and that the accused will not commit any further crime, then only in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances cases falling within the ambit of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the accused can be enlarged on bail. However, in the case on hand, this Court finds that the case does not fall out of the ambit and rigor of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. So far as the ill-health of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the concerned Sessions Court seeking necessary directions to the jail authorities for providing appropriate and sufficient treatment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

With the above observations, the Criminal petition is dismissed.