Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1529 (AP)

Jerra Eswararaju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-11-05

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : This criminal petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. (New Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking regular bail in Crime No.63 of 2024 of Hukumpeta Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). 2. Heard Sri M. Chiranjeevi Babu, the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. Perused the record. 4. The allegations are that on receiving credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hukumpeta Police Station, made an entry in the general diary and deputed a Head Constable and his staff who procured Gazetted Officers and they all reached Jarrakonda Village and found this accused-Sri Jerra Eswararaju on 02.06.2024. On seeing the Police, he tried to run away but was caught and after questioning him they discovered in the cattle shed of the petitioner-accused 45 Kgs., of Ganja. He was arrested and the Ganja was seized and he was remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner sought regular bail before the learned Special Judge and that was dismissed and therefore, the present petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that commercial quantity of Ganja was found and investigation revealed that the petitioner is a cultivator of Ganja and is also a person who stores, transports and sells Ganja and in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act presumption of guilt raises against him and he cannot be released on bail. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner who urged certain grounds in bail petition also filed a memo of additional grounds and cited Abdul Rakib v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal. 2462. The substance of the contention is violation of Sections 52-A and 42 of the NDPS Act. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the seizing officer not only seized the contraband but also drew samples at the spot of seizure itself. Therefore, violated the mandate contained in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 8. The above cited ruling is to the effect that in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the officer receiving information had to prepare a separate report. Therefore, violated the mandate contained in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 8. The above cited ruling is to the effect that in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the officer receiving information had to prepare a separate report. Mere entry in the general diary does not satisfy the legal requirement since such general diary is closed from public view. Nothing contrary is shown by the State in the case at hand. 9. When two important procedural safeguards were overlooked by the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the opinion that they afford valid reason for the petitioner to rebut the statutory restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Added to that, one may notice that for the last more than five months the petitioner has been in judicial custody. Best part of the investigation seems to have been over. Hence, any continued detention does not seem necessary. Therefore, prayer is granted. 10. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on 1st and 15th of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m., till filing of the charge-sheet. Petitioner shall make himself available for investigation by a Police Officer as and when required. He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. He shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the competent Court and participate in pre-trial and trial process without fail.