AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.15 of 2023 of Annavaram Police Station, ASR District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).
Ms.Surakasula Satyaveni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, based on the confession of Accused No.3, the petitioner was arrested pursuant to the execution of the P.T. Warrant. He has been in judicial custody since 05.04.2026. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition.
Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the total contraband involved in the case is 200.00 kgs of ganja. So far, only five witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has not completed the statutory period. He was arrested pursuant to the execution of the P.T. Warrant. Hence, he urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed, as the investigation is still pending and some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
As seen from the record, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2026 pursuant to the execution of the P.T. Warrant issued against him. There are two adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.3. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence, wherein the contraband involved is more than the commercial quantity. There are two adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. So far, only five witnesses have been examined. The material portion of the investigation is also not completed.
Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is also not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 observed that narcotic offences have a grave and far-reaching impact on society, destroying numerous lives. The Court further held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced.
In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24, observed that illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs has become a serious social menace, particularly affecting the youth. The Court further noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under the NDPS Act to effectively combat the menace.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3, at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under the NDPS Act can be granted only upon strict compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 37. The Court further observed that "reasonable grounds" require substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence and has also been involved in two similar offences. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case warranting grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.