Dismissed

B. Satyanarayana v. The State of A.P

Telangana HC27 Feb 2017CRLP/1204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail for offences under the NDPS Act was rejected. The court found prima facie evidence that the police constable accepted money to aid smugglers, violating his duty. The petition was dismissed despite the lack of sympathy for the accused, while preserving the trial court's full discretion.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed; the Petitioner is not granted release on bail.

B. Satyanarayana Vs The State of A.P — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1204 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.8 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking direction to the Station House Officer, Chinturu Police Station, East Godavari District, to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.76 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

It is surprising to note that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as a Constable, readily received an amount of Rs.20,000/- from Ganja smugglers to enable them to transport and to give signal if any trap is laid but the petitioner did not give any signal so as to enable them to transport Ganja, which is prohibited under Section 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, on the strength of the confession made by the other accused, a crime was registered against the Circle Inspector of Police and the petitioner-Constable, who allegedly received Rs.1,50,000/and Rs.20,000/respectively to enable the smugglers to carry on illicit business of Ganja smuggling.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner did not give any signal and therefore, it is not an offence.

¶7

But this contention would not stand to any legal scrutiny for the reason that he promised to give signal so as to enable the smugglers to transport Ganja illicitly. Therefore, it would fall within Section 8(A) of the NDPS Act and punishable under Section 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶8

¶9

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor of the State of Andhra Pradesh that on receipt of such amount to aid the Ganja smugglers, the petitioner was placed under suspension by issuing an order dated 03.12.2016 by exercising power under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.

¶10

Thus, the material on record prima facie shows that the petitioner aided Ganja smugglers and enabled them to carry on business in contravention of Section 8(C) punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the petitioner, being a police constable, which is a disciplined force and who is under the obligation to protect law and order and to detect such offences, himself allegedly involved in such activity for ransom and as such, he deserves no sympathy. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed, as there is prima facie material to conclude that the petitioner committed such offences.

¶11

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the trial and the Presiding Officer of the trial Court is directed to decide the case after trial uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶12

___________________________________ (M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J)

¶13

27^th February 2017 RRB

B. Satyanarayana v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Satyanarayana v. The State of A.P

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

Thodsam Shyantha Raj Vs The State of Telangana

Sanjay Katara, Vs The State of A.P.

Babu , Pulikulam Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Munnangi Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manukonda Siva Rama Seshi Reddy Vs The State of A.P

Gubbala Ravi Kiran Vs The State of Ap.