Partly allowed

Gurunadham Sivakrishna at Sivaiah at Siva v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Aug 2023CRLP/5311/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the second petitioner in a bail petition under sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C regarding an NDPS Act charge. The court refused bail to the first petitioner due to prior similar conviction but granted bail to the second with strict attendance conditions, noting the seized quantity was below commercial threshold.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused to first petitioner; Bail granted to second petitioner on Rs. 25,000 bond with two sureties and attendance conditions.

Gurunadham Sivakrishna at Sivaiah at Siva Vs the… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

_-?

¶2

lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST ll^/O THOUSAND AND ll^/ENTY THREE T

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE KSURESH REDDY r

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5311 OF 2023

¶5

Eietween:

¶6

Gurunadham sivakrishna @ sivaiah @ siva, s/o. subbarao@Gatotkajudu, aged about 35 years, R/o. S.T Colony, Viswanadhapuram, podili Town, Prakasam District.

¶7

Gurunadham sravani@sailuH W/o. SivaKrishna@Sl'vaiah, aged about 33 years, R/o. s.T colony, viswanadhapuram, polKofeswari@Koteswaramma@Kotamma, w/o. subbarao@ Gatotkajudu, aMgaenddaiPoE¥£k6a2saymeaDrF;trPc/t. o-s-T Colony, Chinacheruvu, podili village and

¶8

•':-¥,i-. i I

¶9

PetI-tiOner/A4 to A5 I_`AND

¶10

The State Of Andhra pradesh, station House Officer PedI'" Police Station Podl'll', Prakasam District Rep. by pubII'C Prosecutor High Court, Amaravathi.

¶11

Respondent

¶12

petition under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances Stated in the memorandum of grounds fl'led in support of the crimlnalpetl'tion, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/ accused on bail pending enquiry in FIR No. 64/ap23 on the file of Station House Officer, Podili POIice statl'on, podili, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh .

¶13

The petitI'On coming on for h|6arl-ng, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in supp`6ri thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI ,.Advocate for the petitioners and of public prosecutor for Respondent, the court made the fol'owl'ng ORDER

¶14

The above said Crime was registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offence punishable under section 8(c) read with 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short {the NDPS Act).

¶15

case of the prosecution is that on 29.O3.2023, at about 12.30 hours, the Inspector' of police, podili police station, along with his staff and mediators apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3 near pitchireddy Thota, Podili town and seized 2O Kgs of Ganja from their possession. On the confession made by Al to A3, the petitioners herein who were shown as A4 and A5 were arrested on o4.O7.2023 at Goginenivaripalem Bus Shelter, podili-ongole Road, Podili and seized 2.258 Kgs of Ganja from their possession. After conducting panchanama and seizing the contraband, the s.I. of Police, arrested the Accused Nos.4 and 5, and they were remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2O23.

=-=3Sf-

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only

¶20

2.258 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioners herein whieh is not a commercial quantity and further, they came to be implicated basing on the confessional statements ofAl to A3. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶21

on the other hand, the learned special Assistant public prosecutor, on instructions, stated that A4 was involved in similar crime previously which is the subject matter of crime No.57 of 2022 of ongole I Town police station.

¶22

This court perused the entire material on record. As the lst petitioner/A4 is previously involved in the similar crime this court is not inclined to grant bail to him. In so far as, 2nd petitioner/A5 is concemed, the contraband seized from the possession of accused is only 2.258 kgs of Ganja which is less than commercial quantity and as the 2nd petitioner/A5 is in judicial custody since o4.O7.2O23, this court is inclined to enlarge the 2nd petitioner/A5 on bail, with the following conditions.

¶23

(i) The 2nd petitioner/A5 herein shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First class , podili, prakasam District.

¶24

` c=~s

¶25

(ii) on release, the 2nd petitioner/A5 shall appear before the

¶26

station House offilCer concerned, twice €p a week i.e., on

¶27

--------------------------_____ _ _

¶28

¶29

every Monday and Thursday between 10.00 a.m. and O1.OO

¶30

p.m., until further orders.

¶31

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Partly allowed.

/ITRUE COPY//

To,

The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh.

¶36

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Podili, Prakasam District.

¶37

The Special Court Designated for trial of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -um-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongo[e.

¶38

The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongo[e, Prakasam District.

¶39

The Station House Officer Podili Police Station Podili, Prakasam District .

¶40

One CC to SRl. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P[OUT]

¶42

One spare copy.

psk

Ai'\

A ` i

HIGH COURT

KS RJ

DATE D : 14/08/2023

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.5311 of 2023

ALLOWED

//
+y
I-?
E=L=- I .fr`` L-==i_-, c-'-i\ \c==c±,I
L----- •rL-Hrafang 6_:_ffiTS/\<br>/<br>•., ,.:+pt--., -._ . r
--,.; ,I-S±y _-

Gurunadham Sivakrishna at Sivaiah at Siva v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurunadham Sivakrishna at Sivaiah at Siva 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

Narla Naga Swetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Imandi Siva Dhanush Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ravidran at Ranjith Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Prathima Vs C.Raghava Rajesh

Thomous Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

JudhestiHantal at Dubbu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh