Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 447 (AP)

Jakeer Innush Shaik v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-08

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Venkata Ramana, J. - Accused No.2 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2428 of 2020. Accused No.4 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2430 of 2020. The offences alleged against these petitioners are under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'N.D.P.S.Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2019 at about 8.30 A.M these petitioners along with others were apprehended by the police while transporting 310 kgs of Ganja in Mahindra vehicle in which they were traveling, since it had 310kgs of Ganja. They have been in judicial custody. 3. Sri K.J.Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that they have been languishing in judicial custody for nearly two years and having regard to their avocation as well as nature of allegations set out against them by the prosecution, their request for bail be considered. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seriously opposed these petitions mainly on the ground that there is every possibility of these petitioners repeating the offences and having regard to their past conduct, it is not desirable to consider the request for bail in as much as it would be difficult for the prosecution to secure their presence once they abscond. 5. As seen from the material, it appears that an attempt was made in the trail Court filing Crl.P.No.966 and 967 of 2020 for bail and these two applications were dismissed on 06.06.2020. The predominant factor which prevailed on the learned trial Judge was the fact as to investigation was going on and having regard to the quantity of the contraband seized. 6. However, the charge sheet is already filed in this case and the copy of the same is filed as a part of material papers. However, the quantity of Ganja involved in this case is huge being 310 kgs. Thus, this is a commercial quantity. The allegations of the prosecution set out that the contraband was being transported to the State of Maharastra by these petitioners along with others. When gravity of these circumstances is considered even though the charge sheet is filed, it is a hindering factor to consider the request of the petitioners for bail. Possibility of securing the presence of the petitioners once they are released on bail, is apparently difficult. However, the petitioners can make a request for expeditious trial if so advised. 7. When gravity of these circumstances is considered even though the charge sheet is filed, it is a hindering factor to consider the request of the petitioners for bail. Possibility of securing the presence of the petitioners once they are released on bail, is apparently difficult. However, the petitioners can make a request for expeditious trial if so advised. 7. Thus, finding no justification to grant bail to these petitioners, both petitions have to be dismissed. 8. In the result, both these petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial Court, making appropriate ground, if so advised for grant of bail. Observations in this order shall not in any manner influence the trial Court to consider such applications independently. As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.