Dismissed

Mathe Ramanna v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC21 Jan 2015CRLP/28/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by persons accused of possessing ganja. The prayer was dismissed as there was no independent material to connect them to the crime beyond the confession of a co-accused, which the law treats as sufficient grounds to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for regular bail.

Mathe Ramanna Vs The State of A.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 28 of 2015

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.90 of 2014 of G. Madugula Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of their arrest in connection with the above crime registered for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2014 at about 7.00 hours, on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, G.Madugula P.S. along with his staff reached Matyapuram junction, G.Madugula Mandal and while conducting vehicular check, found ten persons coming from Urlametta village who are in possession of gunny bags containing 400 kgs of ganja. The police apprehended eight of them and seized the ganja under cover of mediators’ report. Basing on these allegations, the above crime came to be registered.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶6

A perusal of the material placed before the Court would disclose that pursuant to the confession made by the coaccused, the petitioners herein are shown as accused, and except that, there is no other material to connect the petitioners with the crime. But however, the confession made to the police by the co-accused cannot be brushed aside at this stage. While

¶7

dealing with the relevancy of the confession, a learned Single Judge of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh V. Kollam Gangi Reddy^[1] observed as under:

¶8

“The Apex Court in State though C.B.I. V. Amarmani Tripathy^[2] categorically laid down that the confession of co-accused can also be a basis for holding prima facie accusation against the accused for negating bail in rejecting the contention contra.”

¶9

Having regard to the said circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners, if so advised, are directed to surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for bail before the appropriate Court after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutor in which event the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law, on the same day.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

21^st January, 2015 cbs

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 28 of 2015

¶15

21^st January, 2015

¶16

cbs