Partly allowed

Imran Ali v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Aug 2023CRLP/4394/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted statutory bail to petitioners Imran Ali and lmtiyaz for plantation quantity NDPS offences as charge sheet was delayed beyond 60 days, dismissing the bail plea for Jaffar Ali due to pending charges in another case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners A-1 and A-2 enlarged on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties; directed to appear twice a week and not tamper with witnesses. Petition against A-3 dismissed.

Imran Ali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶2

:PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4394 OF 2023

¶5

Between :

¶6

Imran Ali, S/a Lookman, Age 27 yrs, Musll'm, residing at Gandhi Sarak, Rishra, West Bengal. (A-1)

¶7

lmtiyaz, S/o Andul Jobbar, @ AbduI Jobbar, age 33 yrs, Muslim, I/ at Sudheer Enclave, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (A-2)

¶8

Jaffar Ali, S/o Majhar Hussain, age 34 yrs, Muslim, residing at Viswakarma colony,Jaitpur Extension, South Delhi (A-3)

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3

¶10

AND

¶11

The State ofAndhra Pradesh, represented by the public prosecutor, A.P.High Court, AmaravathI'

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Petition Under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider the same and release the Petitioners On bail, ln Cr.No 119 /2023 of S.H.O. Duvvada Police Statl'on, Visakhapatnam on such terms and, conditions as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the light of the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶14

The Petition Coming on for,hearing, upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI GOLLA,PALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate for the Petitioners, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, and the Court made the following

`+ ,,

±p[ THE COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATHI

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4394 OF 2O23

¶21

Between:

¶22

Imran Ali, S/o Lookman, Aged 27 years, Muslim, R/o Gandhi Sarak, Rishra, West Bengal and two others.

¶23

... Petitioners / A-1 to A-3

¶24

And

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati

¶26

... Respondent/ Complainant counsel for the petitioner Sri a.Maheswara Rao counsel for the respondent Leamed Assistant Public Pro secutor

¶27

ORDER :

¶28

This petition is filled under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the criminal procedure, 1973 (for short {Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in connection with Crime No. 119 of 2O23 of the Station House OfflCer, Duwada Police Station, visakhapatnan for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 2O(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short tNDPS Act).

¶29

¶30

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.05.2023.on receipt-of reliable information about illegal transportation of ganja, the complainant secured mediators. The complainant along with staff rushed to opposite to RTC Depot, Kurmannapalem. on seeing the police, two male persons were trying to run away along with two luggage brief cases. complainant caught hold of them with the help of staff. on examination, they found eight brown colour packets kept in the luggage of the brief cases and it smelled like ganja. Two persons know Hindi language only. Complainant secured PC 36O8 Sri Md.AIi Basha as Translator who known Hindi and Telugu languages. complainant produc€d the accused before the mediators and questioned them about their particulars. Accused 1 and 2 voluntarily confessed about their coming to Visakhapatnam from west Bengal, their acquaintance with one Jafar Ali (A-3 in the above crime) and taking of ganja from him. complalnant recovered 15 KGs of ganja from the custody of accused 1 and 2 and they were arrested on 31.05.2023 and they were sent to judicial custody. Basing on the confession of accused

¶31

1 and 2, crime is registered against the petitioners.

¶32

3Q Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the leamed As&stant Public Prosecutor for the state.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition,erg/Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 31.05.2023 and A-3 was arrested on o3.06.2O23. The quantity seized from the possession of the petitioners 1 and 2 is 15 KGs which is less than commercial quantity. He would further submit that charge Sheet is not yet filed. since charge sheet is not filed beyond 6O days, petitioners 1 and 2 / Accused 1 and 2 are entitled to statutory bail and hence, prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶34

On instnlctions, 1eamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no application is ffled seeking extension of,time. He further submits that petitioner No.3/A-3 involved in another crime No.482 of 2O2O of IV Tour Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offences under NDPS Act.

¶35

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and as the contraband seized is not a commercial quantity and does not attract the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 1 and 2 / Accused 1 and 2, however, subject to conditions. In so far as petitioner No.3/A-3 is concemed, as he involved in another crime under NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to

¶36

A-3.

¶37

',_-'#

¶38

The petitioners/A-1 and A-2 shad be enlarged on bail in connection with crime No.119 of 2023 of the station House officer, Duwada police station, visakhapatnan on execution of personal bond for Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at visakhapatrlam. on such release, the petitioners shat appear before the concerned police station twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and F`riday between 10.OO AM and 1.OO PM, until further orders. petitioners 1 and 2/ Accused 1 and 2 are directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed in part. In so far as petitioner No.3/A-3 is concerned, the criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶40

_ _____ -i _____

¶41

ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY//

¶42

I s ECTIOfu--a-FIFJ9.EnR. _ -- ` \ | \

¶43

To,

¶44

The Metropolitan sessions Judge-Gum-I AddltIOnal Dl'str,ct & sess,ons Judgespecial Judge for TrI'al Of Offences under NDPS Act, vjsakhapatnam

¶45

543=:Th#:: ss;t¥§or:ndsi:RjjudnSe:eL::Lhi±:P#e;tL:PivrP£Oiia:¥s:Tic::#ii:aianoGT:;I:s;okachkaaatp:a:I;;:uhca]patnam I 6. Two CCs to puBL'C PROSECUTOR, Hlgh Court ofAndhra pradesh [ouT]

¶46

One sparecopy

PSR

HIGH COURT

SRS,J

DATED: 10/08/2023

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.4394 of 2023

ALLOWED

|`
...-_<br>\1 ````J, \l # +fa ll:\til®

Imran Ali v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Ali v. the 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

Sadhu Adinarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadugula Rajulu, Vs The State of A.P.

M. Narayana Chary, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dabbara Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C Venkataramaiah Vs the State of Ap

Smt. G. Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh