Allowed

Ashapak Ashraf Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Aug 2023CRLP/1490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to petitioners accused under the NDPS Act for transporting ganja. The charge sheet was not filed by the police despite statutory deadlines and extensions. Bail was conditioned on bonds, court appearances, and non-interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, to appear twice weekly and not hamper investigation.

Ashapak Ashraf Khan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

I 3Z_;9- I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATJ'`:A,' I

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND T^/ENTY THREE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶6

.. :: -`c4J:,^

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1490 OF 2023

¶8

Betwee n :

¶9

Ashapak Ashraf Khan, S/o. Ashraf Khan, aged 32 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. New Akash Apartment, A-22, Gaondevi Road, Near Gaondevi Temple, Badlapur East, Badlapur Thane, Maharastra State.

¶10

Raees Rahim Khan, , S/o. Rahim Khan, aged 36 years, Occ: contractor, R/6. Chawl No. E/ 14, Room No. 4, Kokari Agar Transit Camp, New 90 feat road, Truck Terminal,Wadala East Mumbai City, Maharastra State

¶11

AND Petitioners/Accused Nos.A4 and A6

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Publie Prosecutor, Hl'gh Court at Amaravathi.

¶13

Respondent

¶14

PetI'tiOn under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, is filed praying that in the ciieumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail in connection with Crime (FIR) No. 3 of 2023 of Mothugudem Police Station, (AIIuri Sitharama Raju) East Godavari District, pending enquiry and trial.

¶15

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MAHESWARI ARIKA Advocate for the Petitioners and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent, the Court made the following

¶16

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of cr.p.c., has been filed by the petitioners/A-4 and A-6, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 3 of 2023 of Mothugudem police Station, AIluri Sitharama Raju District.

¶19

The above Crime was registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 2O(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act').

¶20

Case of the prosecution is that On 23.O1.2,023 at about o3.OO p.m., on receipt Of Credible information, the sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem Police Station along with staff and mediators while conducting vehicle checking,

¶21

they found Accused Nos. 2 to 8, who were transporting loo.00Kgs of Ganja in Toyota Innova Silver Colour Car bearing No.MHO6 AF` OO99 at the outskirts of Surfumamidi village. After conducting PanChanama and after Seizing

¶22

the contraband, the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested_--------- r2es?

¶23

¶24

Accused Nos. 2 to 8, who were remanded to judicial custody t.hereafter.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the contraband seized from the possession of all the Accused is loo.OOKgs of Ganja, and further they are in judicial custody since 23.O1.2023. Though 180 days have elapsed, the Police have not flled charge sheet till today. Subsequently, the Prosecution sought extension of time before the court below and the time was extended by another twenty (20) days. Even after expiry of extended period also, the police did not flle charge sheet. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to enlarge them on bail.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant public Prosecutor confirms the faCtum Of nOn flling of charge sheet even after extended period.

¶27

This Court perused the entire material on record.

¶28

In that view of the matter, as the prosecution has not flled charge sheet within the statutory period, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on ball, on the following conditions.

¶29

¶30

(i) The petitioners/A-4 and A-6 herein shall be released on ball on their executing personal bonds for Rs.25,OOO/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sun each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, Ranpachodavaram.

¶31

(ii) on release, the petitioners shall appear before the station House officer concemed, twice in a week i.e., on every Monday and Thursday between lo.oo a.m. and o1.00 p.m., until further orders.

¶32

J (iii) Funher, the petitioners are directed not to hamper

¶33

the investigation and temper with the prosecution

¶34

witnesses.

¶35

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶36

Sd/-G. HELA NAIDU
ASSISTAN

/ITRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The JudicI'aI First class MagI-Strafe, Rampachodavaram.

¶41

The Station House officer, Mothugudem police statl'on, (AIIurl- Sjtharama Raju) East Godavar,- Dl'strjct.

¶42

3 The superl'ntendent, central Ja" RaJamundry, (Al'urI Sl'tharama Raju (East Godavari District.

¶43

1. one cc to sRl. MAHESWARI ARIKA Advocate [opuc]

¶44

Two ccs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H,'gh Court ofAndhra pradesh [ouT] 6. One spare copy ER

HIGH COURT

KS RJ

DATED : 16/08/2023

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.1490 of 2023

ALLOWED

I*},.> Ih. iZ
fti_- ),~ i *-,{r-ur-
rtl-l I-
.1 -.-+_t^\-i.-S+4+.``` ^ \ .
I_I_ r'-. Q€*=*. a-=2g 6_.C_i I-~1, ffimng!ee)
- :.; I_S r`;--, l\ _i i-:,;.,,

Ashapak Ashraf Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashapak Ashraf Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chiddala Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudavarthi Avinash Gupta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Prathima Vs C.Raghava Rajesh

Binny.Niranjan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Manchala Kiran Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Al Afeez Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh