Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 530 (AP)

Pemmadi Umamahesh v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-14

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.100 of 2020 of Pithapuram Police Station, East Godavari District. 3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act"). 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.05.2020, A-2 to A-4 were found to be illegally transporting Ganja on a motor cycle and at that time, police apprehended them and seized the contraband from their possession. On interrogation, A-3 and A-4 disclosed before the police that at the instance of the petitioner herein that they secured the Ganja and bringing the same and the petitioner herein, who is A-1, used to sell the said Ganja to the students for Rs.500/-. Therefore, the petitioner herein along with the other accused has committed the aforesaid offences in this case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement said to have been made by A-3 and A-4 after their arrest and no contraband is seized from the petitioner herein, who is A-1. Therefore, the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the above crime. So, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied on two judgments of this Court reported in 2014 2 ALT (CRL 256 AP) and the order of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.6424 of 2017. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that at the instance of the petitioner herein that A-2 to A-4 went and secured the Ganja and bringing the same and the petitioner is in habit of selling the said Ganja to the students. Therefore, as he is selling the Ganja to the students, it is not possible to seize the contraband from his possession, as the contraband was already sold to the students. Therefore, as he is selling the Ganja to the students, it is not possible to seize the contraband from his possession, as the contraband was already sold to the students. So, having regard to the fact emanating from the statements of A-3 and A-4 that the petitioner is responsible for transportation of the said Ganja by A-2 to A-4 for selling the same to the students, he would submit that the petitioner herein is not entitled to anticipatory bail and more particularly when the investigation is still pending in this case. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. The record reveals that on 06.05.2020 while A-2 to A-4 were transporting the Ganja on motor cycle that they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession. On interrogation, A-3 and A-4 disclosed that at the instance of the petitioner herein, who is A-1, that they secured Ganja and transporting the same and that A-1 has been selling the said Ganja to the students. Therefore, the facts of the case prima facie show that A-2 to A-4, who were arrested in this case, have been transporting the said Ganja at the instance of the petitioner herein. So, the petitioner is responsible for transportation of the said Ganja by A-2 to A-4. The record further reveals that the petitioner herein, who is A-1, is in the habit of selling the said Ganja to the students. So, having regard to the facts of case and seriousness of the offences, as it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been selling the Ganja to the students and earning money out of it, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as no Ganja is seized from the possession of the petitioner herein that he cannot be held liable for the said offences, cannot be countenanced in the said facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case, as already discussed supra, show that at the instance of the petitioner herein, who is A-1, A-2 to A-4 have been transporting the said Ganja and the petitioner has been selling the said Ganja to the students. The facts of the case, as already discussed supra, show that at the instance of the petitioner herein, who is A-1, A-2 to A-4 have been transporting the said Ganja and the petitioner has been selling the said Ganja to the students. So, the two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable on facts and they are not applicable to the present facts of the case. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.