Allowed

Pallacholla Chaitanya Ram Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Aug 2023CRLP/5621/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two petitioners individually, released them on execution of personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties for similar amounts, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving 23.250Kgs of ganja.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on execution of personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties for like sums.

Pallacholla Chaitanya Ram Kumar Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,rf_-: l1^/O THOUSAND AND l1^/ENTY THREE

¶2

:PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDD CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5621 OF 2023 ~

¶4

B etw e e n : '`rt:¢.+al.L=:= 1. PallachoIIa Chaitanya Ram Kumar, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 23 yes Komaragiripatnam Village, Allavaram Mandalam, West Godavary District.

¶5

Vipparthi Vijaya @ Vijaya Babu, S/o.Veera Swamy, aged 55 years, R/o. Kalyanamandapam street, Tatipaka Village, Razole Mandal, N/o Pedapeta, Gummuluru, West Godavari District.

¶6

Petitioners /A2 and A5

¶7

AND

¶8

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi.

¶9

Respondent r~-

¶10

petition under,sections 437 and 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 enlarge the petitioners /A2 and A5 on Bail in crime No. 44 / 2023 of Malkipuram Police Station, Dr.BR.Amdedkar Konaseema District, in the interest of justice and equity. ~

¶11

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the nemorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri ETUKURI MADHU MURTHY Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following ~ ORDER

¶12

THE HON9BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5621 OF 2O23

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of cr.p.c., has been filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-5, seeking regular bail in Crime No.44 of 2O23 of Malkipuram Police Station, East Godavari District.

¶16

The above Crime was registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and - psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short tthe NDPS ActJ).

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.O4.2023 at about o7.3O p.m., on receipt of credible information, the sub-Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station along with staff and mediators apprehended Accused Nos. 1 to 5 at Gudimellanka Village, Malkipuram Manda1, who were found in possession of 23.250Kgs of Ganja. After conducting panchanama and after seizing the contraband, the Police arrested all the five Accused, who were remanded tO judicial custody thereafter.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the contraband seized from the possession of all the five Accused is 23.25OKgs of Ganja and further the petitioners are in judicial custody since O3.04.2023. As such, the leamed counsel for the petitioners requested this court to enlarge the petitioners/A-2 and A-5 on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, on written instructions, states that the petitioners/A-2 and A-5 were not involved in any other similar crimes previously. He further states that other Accused were already enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶20

This Court perused the entire material on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the contraband seized from the possession of all the flVe Accused is 23.25OKgs of Ganja, which is a little bit higher than non-commercial quantity and further the petitioners are in judicial custody since O3.O4.2O23, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/A-2 and A-5 on bail, on the following conditions.

¶22

(i) The petitioners/A-2 and A-5 herein shall be released on bail on their uexecuting personal bonds for

¶23

-,`.#

¶24

Rs.25,OOO/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two (o2) sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, Razole.

¶25

(ii) on release, the petitioners shall appear before the station House officer concerned, twice in a week i.e.,

¶26

on every Monday and Thursday between lO.OO a.m. and 01.OO p.m., until further orders.

¶27

(iii) Further, the petitioners are directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶28

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶29

sd/-v. sAVITR! GOWRl ASSISTAN RE'GiSTRA

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

For SECTION OFFICER

¶32

T:N-cr)+Lfjdsr` The Judicial First Class, Magistrate court, Razole, East Godavari District. The I Additional sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. The Superintendent, central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

¶33

The StatI'On House officer, Malkipuram police Station, Dr.BR.Amdedkar Konaseema District.

¶34

one cc to sRl. ETUKURI MADHU MURTHY Advocate [opuc] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Coun ofA.P[OUT] One spare copy.

HIGH COURT

KS RJ

DATED:17/08/2023

BAIL ORDER

CRLP.No.5621 of 2023

ALLOWED

7
JI
/
.I.1_u T+`
st_i- •Fgrgr i?=¥- (<==-i_i cst=-,-,-9 EEd-Ltits±:) =+,i •d, i
_ I+ .~
+

Pallacholla Chaitanya Ram Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallacholla Chaitanya Ram Kumar 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

Ashapak Ashraf Khan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Binny.Niranjan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Manchala Kiran Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yenneti Durga Prasad at Durga Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ettapuram Kandathil Irshad at Irshad E.K Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukke Govind Naik at Jumma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh