Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 501 (AP)

Shaik Ateeq Yusuf v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-05

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.685 of 2020 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, Krishna District. 3. The alleged offences against him are under Sections 269, 270, 273, 328 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 5(1) and 22 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short "COTP Act") and under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"). 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 19-06-2020, A-2 to A-5 were found to be illegally transporting 5.5 kgs of Ganja and at that time, they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession. On interrogation, they stated that A-1, who is the petitioner herein, has supplied the said contraband to them and they have been transporting the same. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences along with A-2 to A-5. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was admittedly not found to be in possession of any such contraband and he was implicated in the said case on the alleged statements given by the other accused, who are A-2 to A-5 and as such, he is falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the criminal petition would submit that the statements given by A-2 to A-5, who were arrested and from whom the contraband was seized, would prima facie show that A-1, who is the petitioner herein, supplied the said contraband to them and as such police has to investigate the same on the basis of the said statements and the investigation is still pending in this case and having regard to the seriousness of the offence, as it is a case of N.D.P.S. Act, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. 8. Perused the record. 9. The record reveals that A-2 to A-5, who were apprehended by the police on 19-06-2020 when they were transporting the contraband on interrogation, disclosed before the police that it is the petitioner herein, who is A-1, who has supplied the said contraband to them. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of the said statements given by the accused, who were arrested in this case, that the contraband was supplied to them by the petitioner, who is A-1, police has to investigate the case on the said lines to ascertain the complicity of the petitioner herein in commission of the said offences. Investigation in this case is still pending. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that as it is a case under N.D.P.S. Act, that the petitioner is not entitled to any anticipatory bail. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.