Dismissed

P.Ravidran at Ranjith v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/5528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition for bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC. The accused faced charges for transportation of ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court held that despite only 10 Kgs. being seized from the petitioner, the total contraband involved was 160 Kgs, triggering the mandatory sentencing bar under Section 37 of the Act, thus denying bail.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition for bail is dismissed.

P.Ravidran at Ranjith Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

r s~w

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5528 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Ravidran @ Ranjith, S/o. Ravidran, Aged 32 years R/o.309,-3Mullurukur Vilage, Vaddakanjeri Mandal,Trissur District, Kerala State.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED (Al)

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amravati, and Inspector of Police Yerupedu Police station Chittoor District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.0 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the petitioner on bail pertaining to Crime No. 111/2023 on the file of Yerpadu PS pending investigation and trail.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K L N SWAMY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528 of 2O23

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Accused No.1 in Cr.No.111 of 2023 of Yerpedu Police Station, Tirupati District, filed the present criminal petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on bail. The above crime was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act').

¶20

Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 13.06.2023 at about 08.30 p.m., on credible information about the transportation of ganja, the Inspector of Police, Yerpedu PS, along with his staff and mediators, went to Venkatagiri circle, Yerpedu town, where the Inspector of Police apprehended A.2, A.5 and A.6, who were found in possession of 150 Kgs. of ganja in Mahindra XUV 500 car bearing No.KL 01 BF 1073. After conducting panchanama, after seizing the contraband and the vehicle, the Inspector of Police arrested A.2, A.5 and A.6 and they were remanded to judicial custody subsequently. During the^{course of investigation,} the arrested accused confessed before the Inspector of Police stating that the said ganja^was purchased by the petitioner/A.1 from A.3 to A.6 and thereafter, A.2, A.5 and A.6 were transporting the said ganja to Kerala State. It is further alleged that A.1 was also present in the said vehicle, but on seeing the police, he escaped from the scene of offence. It^{is further} alleged that the petitioner/A.1 used to purchase the ganja from the agency area of^Andhra Pradesh and used to sell in Kerala State for higher price. The petitioner/A.1 was arrested^on 20.06.2023 along with A.7 and 10 Kgs. of ganja was recovered from their^{possessionand} subsequently, they were remanded to judicial custody.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 contends that so far as transporting of 150 Kgs of ganja is concerned, the petitioner is nothing to do with it and he was not found at the scene of offence on 13.06.2023. He further contends that it is only A.2, A.5 and A.6, who were transporting 150 Kgs. of ganja. He further contends that the petitioner came to be implicated in the present case only on the confession made by co-accused and that the contraband seized from the possession of the petitioner and another is only 10 Kgs., which is less than the commercial quantity. He further contends that as the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.06.2023, he requested this Court to enlarge the petitioner/A.1 on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that the contraband involved in the present case is 160 Kgs.

¶23

This Court perused the entire material on record. Though only 10 Kgs. of ganja was seized from the possession of petitioner/A.1 and another, the total contraband involved in the present crime is 160 Kgs. It is further case of the prosecution that on the instructions of the present petitioner/A.1 onl};'the said contraband is being transported from agency area of Andhra Pradesh to' Kerala~States Taking into consideration that the total contraband involved • 6 in the present.crirrie is 160 Kgs.; and in view of the bar contained under the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/A.1 on bait at this stage.

¶24

The criminal petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶25

Sd!- S.SRINIVASA^PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/!

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional District^{and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.}

¶30

The Principal Junior Civil Judge,^{Srikalahasti.}

¶31

The Station House Officer, Yerpedu^{Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.}

¶32

One CC to SRI. K L N SWAMY Advocate^[OPUC]

¶33

Two CCs to the Public^Prosecutor, High^{Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.}

¶34

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/08/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.5528 of 2023

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED jl.v J^(U ~~ 1

P.Ravidran at Ranjith v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravidran at Ranjith 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

Preem at Prem Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lishan Kanari Pushpan, Vs State of A.P.

Beru Lal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Narla Naga Swetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Imandi Siva Dhanush Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Khaja Garib at Khaja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh