Dismissed

Cheepurupalli Simhachalam Naidu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Aug 2023CRLP/5362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail in an NDPS case involving 334 kgs of ganja, the High Court refused bail alongside other accused and dismissed the petition, citing the huge quantity and the role of the petitioner as a mastermind under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; bail not granted.

Cheepurupalli Simhachalam Naidu Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶2

CRL.P.NO.5362 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER :-

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A-4, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.226 of 2023 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, Krishna District.

¶5

A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections. Section.20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶6

Heard. Perused the record.

¶7

On a perusal of the material available on record, it goes to show that on 10-05-2021 at 10.30 A.M on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of Ganja, the Sub-Inspector of police, Kanchikacherla P.S. along with his staff and mediators while conducting vehicle checking near Swarna Toll Plaza, Keesara Village, found Hydraulic Crane bearing No.AP 31 EF 3529 stopped at a little distance to the

¶8

¶9

said Toll Plaza and on seeing the police, Accused Nos.1 and 2 tried to escape, but the Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended them, who were found transporting 334 kgs of Ganja in the said Hydraulic Crane. After conducting panchanama and after seizing the contraband, the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2 who were remanded to the judicial custody thereafter. During the course of investigation, Accused Nos.1 and 2 made a confession stating that they are transporting the said Ganja only on the instructions given by Accused Nos.3 and 4. On the basis of the said confession, the petitioner, who is shown as Accused No.4, was arrested on 10-03-2023, who was remanded to the judicial custody.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner came to be implicated in this case only on the confession made by Accused Nos.1 and 2. Further more, he contended that though the seizure has taken place as early as on 10-05-2021, the petitioner came to be arrested on 10-032023. Therefore, he seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶11

¶12

Per contra , the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail on the ground that the contraband involved in the present crime is 334 kgs of Ganja, which is a huge and commercial quantity. Further, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that Accused Nos.1 and 2 transported the said Ganja at the behest of the petitioner and Accused No.3. He, therefore, requests this court to dismiss the bail application.

¶13

This court perused the entire material on record. As the contraband involved in the present crime is a huge quantity and it is at the behest of the petitioner and another, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were transporting the said Ganja and moreover in view of the provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶14

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶15

_______________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

¶16

24-08-2023. TSNR

Cheepurupalli Simhachalam Naidu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheepurupalli Simhachalam Naidu 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

Atchhnala Seshagiri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Golli Applanaidu at Naidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Serakanam Ramakrishna Vs the State

Pangi Venkata Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pallela Lova Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bola Raju Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh