Union Of India vs Kaluvai Manohar Reddy on 3 July, 2025

0
2

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Union Of India vs Kaluvai Manohar Reddy on 3 July, 2025

APHC010396752024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3521]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

                    CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6490/2024

Between:

   UNION   OF    INDIA,  NARCOTICS CONTROL  BUREAU,
   HYDERABAD SUB-ZONE, THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
   REP BY SPL PP FOR NCB

                                           ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                 AND

   KALUVAI MANOHAR REDDY, S/o Venkata Ramana Reddy R/o Flat
   no 101, MM Residency, Road No.01. 7th Cross, Rock Town Colony
   L B Nagar, Hyderabad 500068.

                                      ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

   Suresh Kumar Routhu (SPL PP for NCB)

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

   D. Purnachandra Reddy

The Court made the following:
                                        2
                                                                          Dr.YLR,J
                                                            Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
                                                                       03.07.2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the Investigating Officer of

the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Hyderabad under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’)/Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking,

to set aside the order dated 20.06.2024 by cancelling bail granted to

respondent/Accused No.1 in NCBF.No.48/1/6/2023/NCB/SUB-ZONE/

HYD, now registered as NDPS SC No.7/2024, passed by the learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – I Additional District and Sessions

Judge (Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act),

Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2024, and to pass appropriate

orders.

2. The case advanced by the prosecution is this:

On 05.06.2023, the petitioner/complainant received specific

information that four persons viz., namely: i) B. Nageswara Rao, ii) E.

Yadaiah Goud, iii) G. Nagaraju, and iv) K. Manohar Reddy, were

manufacturing a large quantity of Alprazolam in the production block of

CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., located at Plot No. 23- 1 (Part- 1), De- notified

Area, Atchutapuram APSEZ, Lalamkoduru (V), Rambilli Mandal,

Anakapalli- 531011. Further information indicated that they were nearing

completion the manufacturing process. This information was reduced in
3
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024

03.07.2025

writing and submitted to Superintendent, NCB Hyderabad Sub- Zone.

Following his instructions, the petitioner/complainant engaged two

independent witnesses through the Tahsildar of Rambilli Mandal and

proceeded to the above-mentioned facility. They intercepted three

individuals viz., B. Nageswara Rao, Erukula Yadaiah Goud, and

Gonepally Nagaraju in the production block. These individuals were

observed packing material into drums. During the search, 119.5 kg of

light-yellow powder, suspected to be Alprazolam, was recovered and

seized in accordance with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act‘), in the presence of the

owner of CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Additionally, equipment used in the

manufacture of the seized substance was also seized.

b. Subsequently, the three suspects viz., B. Nageswara Rao (A- 1),

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ Giri (A- 2), and Gonepelly Nagaraju (A- 3) were

examined under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ Each gave statements

admitting their involvement in the manufacture, possession, and attempt

to transport the light-yellow powder (Alprazolam), all with the motive of

earning easy money.

c. Based on their admissions, the seized materials, and other

incriminating documents, the accused were arrested on 06.06.2023 at

17:00 hrs, 17:15 hrs, and 17:30 hrs respectively, for contraventions of
4
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c), 28, and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act‘. They

were produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate at Yellamanchili on

07.06.2023, remanded to judicial custody, and lodged in Visakhapatnam

Central Jail.

d. As part of the investigation, based on a voluntary disclosure by B.

Nageswara Rao (A- 1), it was revealed that K. Manohar Reddy,

co- accused in another NDPS case registered at RC Puram Police

Station, was the financier of the operation, having contributed

approximately Rupees Fifty Lakhs for manufacturing. Consequently, on

23.06.2023, summons was issued to K. Manohar Reddy under Section 67

of ‘the NDPS Act‘. Upon examination, he admitted to financing the

manufacture and attempted transportation of the light-yellow powder

(Alprazolam), as seized under the Panchnama dated 05/06.06.2023. He

also admitted to various attempts to evade law enforcement and

acknowledged his motive of easy money. Accordingly, he was arrested

on 23.06.2023 at 17:30 hrs for violations of Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27A, 28,

and 29 of ‘the NDPS Act‘.

e. Following a thorough investigation, including analysis of call data

records (CDRs), tower locations, and hotel-stay data in Atchutapuram

during the relevant period, the respondent was arraigned as Accused- 1.

A petition was filed under Section 36A of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ before the
5
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on

29.11.2023. The bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2024 was allowed by

the learned Special Sessions Judge, granting bail to the

respondent/accused No.1. Hence, the present application has been filed.

3. Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for

NCB, appearing for the petitioner-State, contended that the learned

Special Sessions Judge erroneously enlarged the respondent/accused

No.1 on bail, disregarding established legal principles. The respondent,

being accused No.1, was the principal offender in this case, involving the

seizure of 119.5 Kg of Alprazolam, a huge commercial quantity as per

‘the NDPS Act‘. The learned Special Sessions Judge failed to provide

with the learned Special Public Prosecutor an adequate opportunity to

oppose the bail application, contrary to the mandate of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii)

of ‘the NDPS Act‘.

4. Additionally, the respondent/accused No.1 is involved in another

offence under Section 27A of ‘the NDPS Act‘ in Crime No.612 of 2020.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the averments in the

counter affidavit filed by the prosecution before the learned Special

Sessions Judge were not properly considered.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the

learned Special Sessions Judge did not correctly apply the provisions of
6
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and mechanically passed the order, stating

that the petitioners were in judicial custody for over a year. It was argued

that, in contrast, the learned Special Sessions Judge had duly considered

the implications of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ while dismissing the bail

application of Bondalapati Nageswara Rao/accused No.2, in

Crl.M.P.No.690 of 2025. It is argued, however, that the learned Special

Sessions Judge failed to apply the same reasonings to the

respondent/accused No.1.

6. Per contra, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing

for the respondent/accused No.1, filed a counter affidavit, asserting that

sufficient opportunity was provided to the learned Special Public

Prosecutor before the learned Special Sessions Judge to present his

arguments. It was also submitted that the learned Special Sessions

Judge passed a reasoned order, which does not warrant interference on

whatsoever grounds, as the prosecution had also filed a counter affidavit.

The respondent denied committing any offence and claimed to have been

falsely implicated and urging the dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, to buttress his

contentions relied on the following judgments:
7

Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

a. In State v. B. Ramu1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a case of

recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be

slow in granting even regular bail or anticipatory bail more so when

accused is alleged to have criminal antecedents. In this regard,

paragraph Nos.8, 9 & 11, relevant paragraphs, are extracted hereunder:

“8. Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with bail to the accused
charged in connection with offence involving commercial quantity of a
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The provision is reproduced
herein-below for the sake of ready reference:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure
, 1973 (2 of 1974):

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable.

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences
under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences
involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own
bond unless:

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release.

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he
is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
subsection (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure
, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time
being in force on granting of bail.

9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that
in the event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either
regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to
record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.

1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073
8
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance,
the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused
what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to
be having criminal antecedents.”

b. In Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh2, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held that no person accused of offence involving trade in a commercial

quantity of narcotics is entitled to be released on bail unless the Court is

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not

guilty of such offence.

c. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at

Paragraph No.19 as under:

“19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of
power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations
contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to
the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-
obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the
negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person
accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin
conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the
prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not
satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates”

d. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal4, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that the length of the period of judicial custody and the

fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 346
3
(2020) 12 SCC 122
4
(2022) 18 SCC 374
9
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive

grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of ‘the

NDPS Act.’ In that regard, the relevant paragraph Nos.18 and 19 are

extracted hereunder:

“18. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the
other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were
subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought
on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court
from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding
that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such
an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission
made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in
the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the
respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged.
Such an assumption would be premature at this stage.

19. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under
Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case.
At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully
demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not
guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to
bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet
has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not
considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief
to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”

e. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari5, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held about recovery of 400 kgs. of poppy straw from possession of

accused respondent that two conditions to be satisfied under Section 37

of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ for granting bail: First, the satisfaction of the Court that

there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused not guilty, and

second that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of

5
(2007) 7 SCC 798
10
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

conditions are not satisfied, the accused cannot be granted bail. In that

regard, the relevant paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 11 are extracted here under:

“6. As the provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail
unless the two conditions are satisfied. They are; the satisfaction of the
Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both
the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not
satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail.

7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable
grounds”. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds.
It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn
points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in
themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty
of the offence charged.

11. The Court while considering the application for bail with reference
to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It
is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing
the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records
its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not
to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and
recording a finding of not guilty.”

f. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan6, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held that given the seriousness of offences punishable under ‘the NDPS

Act.,’ and to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent

parameters for grant of bail under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ have been prescribed.

g. In State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo7, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held at paragraph Nos.5 to 8 as below:

“5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in
cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
6
(2021) 10 SCC 100
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751
11
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

substances, while considering the application of bail, the Court is bound to
ensure the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act. The said provision reads thus: –

“37(1)(b)(ii)- where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.”

6. While considering the cases under NDPS Act, one cannot be
oblivious of the objects and reasons for bringing the said enactment after
repealing the then existing laws relating to the Narcotic drugs. The object
and reasons given in the acts itself reads thus: –

“An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to
make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations
relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for
the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the
provisions of the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith.”

In the decision in Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira
{(2004) 3 SCC 549}, the three judge bench of this Court considered
the provisions under Section 37(1)(b) as also 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act,
with regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court
held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it
contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that
the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.

As relates the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act, viz., that, firstly, there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of such offence and, secondly, he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail it was held therein that they are
cumulative and not alternative. Satisfaction of existence of those twin
conditions had to be based on the ‘reasonable grounds’, as referred above.

7. In the decision in State of Kerala and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors.
{(2020) 12 SCC 122}, after reiterating the broad parameters laid down
by
this Court to be followed while considering an application for bail moved
by an accused involved in offences under the NDPS Act, in paragraph 18
thereof this Court held that the scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would reveal that the exercise of power to grant bail in such cases is not
only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, but also subject to the limitation placed by Section
37(1)(b)(ii)
, NDPS Act. Further it was held that in case one of the two
conditions thereunder is not satisfied the ban for granting bail would operate.

12

Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

8. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act
and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court
that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved
in an offence under NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding
mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for
granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while
passing orders on such applications.”

8. On the other hand, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent/accused No.1, relied on the following

judgments:

a. In Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb8, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at

paragraph Nos.8 and 15 as under:

“8. It must be emphasised at the outset that there is a vivid distinction
between the parameters to be applied while considering a bail application, vis-à-
vis those applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation. In Puran v.
Rambilas
, it was reiterated that at the time of deciding an application for bail, it
would be necessary to record reasons, albeit without evaluating the evidence on
merits.
In turn, Puran cited Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.); wherein this
Court observed that bail once granted by the trial Court, could be cancelled by
the same Court only in case of new circumstances/evidence, failing which, it
would be necessary to approach the Higher Court exercising appellate
jurisdiction.

15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit
not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy
trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners)
v. Union of India
, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained
pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts
unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the
practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the
risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts
are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial
or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the
accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts
would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”

8

(2021) 3 SCC 713
13
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

b. In Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India9, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as under:

“13. In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of
the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary
stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of
commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the
NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by
DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency
and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. Most importantly,
none of the tablets were seized by the prosecution during the course of the
search conducted, either at the office or at the residence of A-4 at Jaipur,
on 16-3-2020. Reliance on printouts of WhatsApp messages downloaded
from the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of A -4
cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link
between him and A-1 to A-3, when even as per the prosecution, scientific
reports in respect of the said devices is still awaited.

14. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the
conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on
the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too
tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15-7-2021 {Union of
India Vs. Bharat Choudary, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6554}. This is all the
more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh
{Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
, (2021) 4 SCC 1}. The impugned
order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the order dated
2-11-2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS cases, is
restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan (A-1), since the charge-sheet has
already been filed and by now the said accused has remained in custody
for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on
bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.”

c. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta10,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under:

“11. Having gone through the records along with the tabulated
statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner NCB
and on carefully perusing the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad
Arimutta v. State
, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union
of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , [Munees Kavil
Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , [Abu
Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of

9
(2021) 20 SCC 50
10
(2022) 12 SCC 633
14
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil Parambath v. State
of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] passed in each case, it
emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the
first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial
material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to
connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of
indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution
that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of
the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial
quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the
NDPS Act.

12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh v. State of
T.N. [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021) 4 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri)
246] , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the
NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by
the petitioner NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements
of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders
[Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar
3516] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd.
Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil
Parambath v. State of Karnataka
, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432]
releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the
allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the
respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial.
For
the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders
dated 16-9-2019 [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC
OnLine Kar 3516] , 14-1-2020 [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020
SCC OnLine Kar 3433] , 16-1-2020 [Munees Kavil
Paramabath v. State
, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431] , 19-12-2019 [Abu
Thahir v. State
, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] and 20-1-2020 [Munees
Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka
, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432]
passed in SLP (Crl.) No. arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020, SLP
(Crl.) No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs (Crl.) Nos.
1773-74 of 2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021 respectively.
The
impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC
OnLine Kar 3516] , [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine
Kar 3433] , [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar
3431] , [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517] , [Mohd.
Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294] , [Munees Kavil
Parambath v. State of Karnataka
, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432] are,
accordingly, upheld and the special leave petitions filed by the
petitioner NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective
respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”

15

Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

d. In Bhuri Bai v. State of M.P.,11 the Hon’ble Apex Court held at

paragraph Nos.19 and 20 as under:

“19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted.
Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made
out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under
Section 439(2) CrPC.

20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had
misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of
the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of
cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and
circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any
perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In
other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if
of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where
bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is
envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to
be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In
the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue
was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated
by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.”

9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced

by Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB,

appearing for the petitioner-State, and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused No.1.

10. Of course, the learned Special Sessions Judge passed a two-page

order granting bail to the petitioner therein, merely stating that the

petitioner had been in judicial custody for the past one year. The order

does not reflect thorough consideration of the stringent requirements

under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’

11
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779
16
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

11. Indeed, the length of his custody period or the fact that the charge

sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not

considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting

relief to the respondent under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.’ Of course, a

plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the

event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or

anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to record a

satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not

guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any

offence while on bail. The learned Special Sessions Judge ignored the

above settled position.

12. It is pertinent to note that in a separate application concerning

accused No.2, the learned Sessions Judge duly considered the purport of

Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and passed the interim order.

13. In fact, Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.),12 the Hon’ble

Apex Court observed that bail once granted by the trial Court could be

cancelled by the same Court only in case of new circumstances/evidence,

failing which, it would be necessary to approach the Higher Court

exercising appellate jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified

in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the

12
(1978) 1 SCC 118
17
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

Constitution of India would cover within its protective ambit not only due

procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial.

14. While this Court possesses the power under Section 439 of ‘the

Cr.P.C.,’ or Section 483 of ‘the BNSS’ to cancel the bail granted by the

learned Special Sessions Judge, but we are not inclined to exercise this

discretion at this juncture by which time much water has been flown since

the learned Special Sessions Judge has been apprised of the entire

matter and seized of trial.

15. Needless to say, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or

grounds shall exist for cancelling the bail already granted to the

Respondent by the learned Special Sessions Judge. It is trite law that,

unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an

order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under

Section 439(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

16. It is not the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for

NCB that the Respondent had misused the liberty or had comported

himself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on him.

Undoubtedly, the power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with

extreme care and circumspection.

18

Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

17. Be that as it may, the impugned order was passed over a year ago

and since then, significant developments have been taken place. The

learned Special Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the offence

following the filing of the charge sheet, and the matter has been assigned

a Sessions case number. It is the learned Special Sessions judge, who

would be aware of the facts whether the respondent misused the liberty

or composed himself in any manner in violation of conditions imposed on

him. Further, no reasons are assigned for filing this application before us

directly without filing the application before the learned Special Sessions

Judge. Therefore, it is appropriate to give necessary directions to the

petitioner to approach the learned Special Sessions Judge for

cancellation of bail given to the respondent.

18. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also fairly conceded

that the learned Special Sessions Judge has initiated the trial by framing

charges. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to dispose of

this criminal petition with a direction to the petitioner-State to move an

application seeking for cancellation of the bail before the learned Special

Sessions Judge, who granted bail to the respondent/accused No.1.

19. In the event of such an application is filed by the petitioner-State,

the learned Special Sessions Judge is directed to consider it, on its own

merits, considering the arguments and judgments, if any, relied upon by
19
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.P.No.6490 of 2024
03.07.2025

both the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused.

The application should be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within two

weeks from the date of its filing.

20. However, it is made clear that the observations made above were

only confined to the disposal of this application and in no way be

construed to have an expression on the merits of the case before the

learned Trial Court.

21. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
3rd July, 2025
Cbn/VTS



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here