Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nathan Pal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9003 of 2024
ORDER:
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‘).
2. Heard arguments of Sri G.Maheswara Rao, the learned
counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Perused the record.
4. 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.
2
5. 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.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.
7. 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 AP1, 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.
1
2007 SCC Online AP 359
3
8. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for nearing
2½ months. Best part of the investigation seems to have been
over.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that any continued detention does not seem necessary.
Hence, prayer is granted.
10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed in the
following terms:
1. 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.
2. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the
investigating officer on 1st and 15th of every month between
4
10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for a period of three months or till
filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
3. 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.
4. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar acts of crime.
5. The petitioners must regularly participate in the pre-trial and
trial process without fail before the competent Court.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 26.12.2024
Ivd
5
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9003 of 2024
Date: 26.12.2024
Ivd