Dismissed

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ Girl v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024CRLP/6272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused reported to be in possession of 119.5 kgs of Alprazolam. The court held that the substantial quantity of contraband and commercial involvement rendered the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act unfulfilled, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking regular bail was dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ Girl Vs Union of India… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

APHC010391622024

[3369]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDA Y , THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6272/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ G irl

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

Union Of India Through Int e lligence Officer ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶17

1.SURESH KUMAR R O UTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB)

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

1. This is the 2^nd Cri m inal Petition, under Sections 480 a nd 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh a Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) [pre v iously filed under sections 437 and 43 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 7 3], filed by the Petitioner/A.2, seeki n g regular bail in Cr.No.48/1/6/2023 / NCB/SUBZONE/HYD, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 28 & 29 of NDP S Act.

¶20

2. The Prosecution's c a se, in brief, is that on 05.06.2023, the Intelligence Officer of the Union of India's NCB received information re g arding the manufacturing of a large q uantity of Alprazolam in the producti o n block of CPR Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. in Atchuthapuram APSEZ, Rambilli Ma n dal. Acting

¶21

¶22

on this information, the Intelligence Officer, along with mediators, found A.1 to A.3 at the production block, where they were packing materials in drums. Subsequently, 119.5 kgs of light yellow powder, suspected to be Alprazolam, were seized from the drums, along with equipment, in the presence of the laboratory owner, under the NDPS Act. A.1 to A.3 confessed to their involvement in the manufacturing, possession, and attempted transportation of the substance.

¶23

3. The counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is reported to be in custody since 07.06.2023, enduring incarceration since that date and the the charge sheet has filed vide SC.NDPS.No.7 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge for trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future and requested to consider the bail application for the Petitioner.

¶24

4. Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB, opposed the Petitioner’s bail application, citing that the Petitioner was found in possession of 119.5 kgs of Alprazolam, significantly exceeding the commercial quantity of 100 grams, by 1195 times. Additionally, there were 234 call records between A.3 and A.2 prior to the crime period. However, he noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute bar on granting bail to the Petitioner.

¶25

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced.

¶26

6. After elaborate discussions of the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, this Court observed in the previous bail order that the Petitioner has a history of criminal involvement, and a case was previously registered against him by R.C.Puram Police, Hyderabad, concerning the Alprazolam drug; given

¶27

¶28

the significant quantity of Alprazolam found in the possession of the Petitioner and his lack of a vlid manufacturing license, this Court concludes that the conditions outlined in section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied; this Court views that the NCB officials collected the material prima facie to show the Petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the offence.

¶29

7. Considering the facts and circumstances including the fact that commercial quantities of psychotropic substances have been recovered at the instance of the Petitioner, it is not possible to form a prima facie view at this stage, that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offences or that he would not commit similar offences if released on bail. Therefore, the twin conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied and bail cannot be granted to the Petitioner at this stage. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively stated that there is no likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future.

¶30

8. As already discussed in the previous bail order, this Court is of view that parameters of bail under section 37 of NDPS Act have not been satisfied in the facts of the present case. It is not possible to conclude that the Respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the Respondent under section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶31

9. The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer reveals that A.1 and A.2 conspired to illegally transport Alprazolam for profit. A.1 provided Alprazolam to A.2, who in turn distributed it to A.1's customers, receiving a commission of Rs. 5,000 per 1kg packet. A.2 transported the Alprazolam from A.1's premises in IDA Bollaram and delivered it to customers Manohar Reddy, Hetmans Ravi, and Rajesh Reddy, each paying Rs. 3,00,000 per packet. The

¶32

¶33

collected amounts were then handed over to Govind Reddy and his family or deposited into their bank accounts.

¶34

10. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated.

¶35

11. Where prima facie involvement of the Accused is apparent, the contentions raised regarding the contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial, but not at this stage. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the Petitioner/Accused to be enlarged on bail. The filing of the charge sheet signifies that after due investigation, the investigation agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the Petitioner. Simply filing the charge sheet does not constitute a valid ground for granting bail to an accused under the penal provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶36

12. Given above, and taking into account the cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence, and the substantial quantity of contraband involved, the manner of its commission, and its impact on the society, it is evident that the Petitioner is not entitled to bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

13. In light of this, the Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶38

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶40

Date: 04.12.2024 SAK

¶41

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶43

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6272/2024

¶44

Date: 04.12.2024

¶45

SAK

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ Girl v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erukala Yadaiah Goud @ Girl v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer

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

Veerepalli Eswaraiah Vs Manchu Lakshmaiah

G.Bhagavat Singh, Vs The Govt. of A.P

Dendukuri Tagore Koteswara Raju and Another Vs Somayajula Kumari and 5 Others

Mr.Gunapareddy Suryanarayana Vs Mr.Gunapareddy Venkataratnam (died)

Gpllapalli Balaguruvaiah @ Balaswamy. Vs Madduri Lakshmi REDDI.&2 Others

Varada Sai Baba Vs Madduluri Srinivasa Rao