Dismissed

J.Maruthi Goud, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Jul 2016CRLP/10460/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding an NDPS case, the Court declined the plea arguing that without the quantum of contraband, entitlement to bail cannot be determined under Section 37 NDPS Act, transferring the matter to regular bail proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied. Petitioner directed to surrender and apply for regular bail.

J.Maruthi Goud, Vs State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10460 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is A.2 in COR No.132 of 2016 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime, registered initially for the offences punishable under Section 27 (1) of A.P. Excise Rules, 2007 and subsequently altered to Section 8 (c) r/w.22 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2016, the Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector along with staff conducted inspection in the toddy shop of the petitioner situated in Janakampet Village, Yedapalli Mandal, Nizamabad District, drawn samples and sent to laboratory for chemical analysis. The analyst opined that the toddy was adulterated with alprazolem. Basing on these allegations the above case came to be registered.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the analyst report is silent with regard to percentage of alprazolem, as such the petitioner is entitled for the relief. The same is opposed by the Public Prosecutor.

¶8

The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for bail if the toddy seized is adulterated with alprazolem came up for consideration before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5735 of 2014. Dealing with the said aspect, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that though the contraband is found to be adulterated with psychotropic substances but the quantity of substance was not indicated to say as to whether it is above small quantity or above commercial quantity. It has been held that it is important to consider whether it is a commercial quantity or not for the purpose of entitlement or disentitlement of the bail in view of Section 37 of

¶9

the N.D.P.S.Act. It has been further held that in the absence of any material, the quantity which is found to be adulterated, is to be taken as small quantity, the approximate punishment would be upto three years and as such the petitioners therein are entitled for regular bail though not for anticipatory bail.

¶10

In view of the judgment referred above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall surrender before the learned Magistrate or Special Judge concerned and move an application for regular bail, in which event, the same shall be considered in accordance with law either on the same day or at the earliest.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶12

_____________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶13

26.07.2016 sur

J.Maruthi Goud, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Maruthi Goud, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gogulamudi Punnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Deepak Vs The State of Telangana

M.Anja Goud, Vs State of Telangana

Dande Krishna Murthy Vs the State of A.P.

Guguloth Srinivas Nayak Vs The State of Telangana