Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 179 (AP)

Ranjan Nayak v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-08-07

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2019
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 in Cr. No. 76 of 2019 on the file of Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The accused are charged of an offence under Section 20(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in this case are merely engaged as coolies and drivers and that they are not at all actively involved in the commission of the offence. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that it cannot be said that the accused in this case are driver and collies. He submits that a reading of the mediators report clearly shows that they were they were aware of the crime and that Ganja is being transported. He submits that huge quantity of 300 kgs of Ganja has been seized. He points out that A.3 (petitioner No. 1) clearly stated that he was engaged for the purpose of transporting Ganja. Similarly, A.5 also states that he was aware that the Ganja is being purchased and it should be transported. Even in the statements of A.6 and A.7, it is clearly stated that for the purpose of loading Ganja they would be paid extra remuneration and then they consented for the same.. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the accused in this case were unaware of the substances in the packets and the reason why their services were engaged. This Court is of the opinion that the accused cannot be granted bail because they were aware of the procurement and transportation of the prohibited substance namely, Ganja. As a huge commercial quantity of 300 kgs of Ganja was involved, this Court is of the opinion that bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply, it cannot be said that the accuses are the absolutely innocent of the accusation against them. At this stage, the available material shows that they were all conscious of the purpose for which their services were being engaged. 5. Hence, for all these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner are not entitled to bail as prayed for. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage, the available material shows that they were all conscious of the purpose for which their services were being engaged. 5. Hence, for all these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner are not entitled to bail as prayed for. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. 7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.