Dismissed

Golli Applanaidu at Naidu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Aug 2023CRLP/5383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for regular bail, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the argument that separate transactions were involved. The court held the accused supplied 32 kg of ganja, confirming a commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and dismissed the bail petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; regular bail not granted.

Golli Applanaidu at Naidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl^^i^jr?^*.

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

51’^" i Bf-'iSegSS Ofl

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶7

CRIIVIINAL PETITION NO: 5383 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Golli Applanaidu @ Naidu,, S/o. Late Nookaraju, Aged about 39 years CasteSff Village and Mandal, Ariakapalli Mandal. N/o.Vattigadda village. Rajavommangi Mandal, East Godavari District

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused no.1

¶11

AND

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Petition under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the F R Nn°R?/91ST®^ Petitioner/Accused No,1 in Crime Seton the file of Annavaram PS, East Godavari District (now Kakinada District).

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kona N.D.V.Ramana Rao .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent,

¶15

The Court made the following;

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5383 OF 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Petition, under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A-1, seeking regular bail, in Crime FIR No.85 of 2023, of Annavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶20

A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections. 8(c) r/w Section.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act*).

¶21

Heard. Perused the record. 4. On a perusal of the material available on record, it goes to show that on 16.03.2023 at 09.30 AM, the Sub-Inspector of police, Annavaram PoUce Station along with staff and mediators apprehended A-5, A-7 to A-11, near Mandapam Junction, outskirts of Annavaram Village, who were found in possession of 12 Kgs of Ganja in six packets. Further, the arrested accused made a confession stating that the petitioner/Accused No.l and another purchased 32 Kgs of Ganja from agency area and divided the same into two (2) Kg packets and entrusted the same to A-5, A-7 to A-11 for about 12 Kgs and the remaining 20

¶22

Kgs of Ganja was put in two gunny bags and entrusted the same to A-3, A-4 and A-6. On the confession made by Accused No.5, the petitioner/Accused No.l was arrested on 03.05.2023 at 09.30 A.M and he was remanded to Judicial Custody subsequently.

¶23

Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Kona N.D.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. He further contended that the police have clubbed two different transactions into one in order to show that the transaction comes under the “commercial quantity”. Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that both the alleged transactions are different and as such, the quantity seized in two different cases would not come under the head of “commercial quantity”, As such, he requested this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending inter-alia that the transaction is one and the same and it is the petitioner who supplied 32 Kgs of Ganja to two different sets/groups of people, who were apprehended by the police while they were transporting the said 32 kgs of Ganja.

¶25

7. This Court perused the entire material on record. The allegation made against the petitioner, though by way of confession, is that he supplied 32 Kgs of Ganja to A-2, A-5 and A-6, who in turn sold the said 32 Kgs of Ganja to two different sets of people. The contraband was purchased and supplied by the petitioner. As such, in the considered view of this Court, the contraband purchased and supplied by the petitioner is 32 Kgs, which is a commercial quantity and in view of the provision under Section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶26

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶27

SD/- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶28

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶29

To,

¶30

The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakahapatnam.

¶31

The Station House Officer, Annavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶32

One CC to Sri. Kona N.D.V.Ramana Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶33

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.[OUT]-

¶34

Three CD Copies

GKK

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/08/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.5383 of 2023

¶41

5 2 NOV 2023 I
Current Section .

¶42

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Golli Applanaidu at Naidu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golli Applanaidu at Naidu, 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

Peeta Raman Vs the State through the Station House Officer

M.N. Abdul Jaleel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y S Ramya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Atchhnala Seshagiri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Serakanam Ramakrishna Vs the State

Gummadi Eswaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh