Sharfaraju Shaik Sharfaraj Ahmed vs The State Of Ap on 17 January, 2025

Date:

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Sharfaraju Shaik Sharfaraj Ahmed vs The State Of Ap on 17 January, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

                     CRIMINAL PETITION No.102 OF 2025



ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to modify the order, dated

28.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.769 of 2024 (Crime No.16 of 2023 of III Town

Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-

cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Judge for trial of offences

under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam by reducing the surety amount from

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crime No.16 of 2023

was registered against the petitioner/A.1 by the III Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) r/w

8(c) of NDPS Act. The concerned Court while granting bail to the petitioner

initially imposed a condition that the petitioner shall execute a self bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam; thereafter, on the

petitioner’s application, the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was modified to a sum

or Rs.50,000/-.

2

MRK,J
Crlp_102_2025

4. Learned counsel further submits that the condition imposed by the

Court below is onerous. The petitioner is a poor person and is not in a position to

furnish personal bond and sureties for Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner is in judicial

custody since 31.01.2023. Even though the petitioner was granted bail on

11.03.2024, as he was unable to secure the sureties, he could not be enlarged.

He accordingly prayed to reduce the surety amount from Rs.50,000/- to

Rs.5,000/-.

5. It is apt to mention that way back in 1970’s itself, the Apex Court in

Gudikanti Narsimhulu v. High Court of A.P.1, categorically opined that ‘Heavy

bail from poor man is obviously wrong’.

6. Thus, a pragmatic and purposive import squarely serves the purpose

of ensuring the principle as a ‘Bail is the Rule and Jail is an exception’ and also

another golden rule is ‘excessive bail is no bail’. Recently, the said legal

principles were followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan v.

Union of India2 and in Girish Gandhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh3.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels

that the request of the petitioner can be considered.

1
(1978) 1 SCC 240
2
(2024) Livelaw SC 571
3
(2024) 10 SCC 674
3
MRK,J
Crlp_102_2025

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A.1 is

ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with

two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The remaining conditions imposed in

Crl.M.P.No.484 of 2024 shall stand good.

_______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
17.01.2025.

Vjl/TJN/PNR
4
MRK,J
Crlp_102_2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION No.102 OF 2025

17.01.2025

Vjl/TJN/PNR



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related