Allowed

Karakula Gangaprasad or Prasad v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC8 Mar 2018CRLP/2253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition for enlargement on bail. Court held accused is entitled to bail under Section 437 CrPC as his share of seized ganja falls below commercial quantity despite total seizure being commercial. Granted personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties for like sums. Directed to appear at Police Station twice weekly.

Karakula Gangaprasad or Prasad Vs State of Ap. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

I^26e0 |

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICA'IURE AT HYDERABAD FOR TIIE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EICHTEEN

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE S]\IT JUSTICE T. RAJ,.\NI

¶6

CIUMINAt, PE'l'ITION NO: 2253 Olf 2018

¶7

Betrvcen:

¶8

Karakula Cangaprasad @ Prasad, S/o.Car.rgaraju

¶9

....Pctitioncr/Accused No. I

¶10

.A.Nt)

¶11

'I'l.re State o1'A.P.. Rep.by the Public Prosccntor, Higli Coult of Hyderabad, throtrgl'r Kotarranduru Police Station, \risakhapatnam District.

¶12

....Respondent/Complainant

¶13

Petition undcr Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circr,rmstanccs stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Crirninal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlargc the petitior.rer/accused No.l in Crirne No.21 of 2018 of Kotananduru Police Station, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, dated I 7.0 1.20 I 8. ;

¶14

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the aftldavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing tlic arguments of SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDAT\vA Advocate fbr the Petitioner and of the Public Prosccutor (AP) fbr Respondent

¶15

The Court rnade the follou ing Order:

¶16

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2253 OF 2018

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is fited seeking for grant of bait to the petitioner, who is accused No.1, in Crime No.21 of 2018 on the fite of the Kotananduru Potice Station, Visakhapatnam District.

¶20

Z. The offence atteged is under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,^'l 985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the pet'itioner, learned Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, and perused the record.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that 40 kgs of ganja attogether is seized from accused 1 to 4. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not permit the Court to grant bait to the petitioner/accused No.1, where contraband invotved is commerciaI quantity.

¶23

Learned counse[ for the petitioner submits that there are four (4) accused in this case and that when the quantity seized is divided among them, it fatts betow the commerciat quantity and, hence, it cannot be considered as a case

¶24

1\0{r [-

¶25

¶26

'invotving commerciaI quantity. ln support of his submission, he relies on the orders of this Court, dated 08.03.2017,^passed in Criminal Petition Nos.1501 and 1508 of 7017 and Criminal Petition No.12155 of 201 5; from which, it can be understood that this Court took a view that when the^quantity of contraband is seized, it has to be equatty divided among the peopte, who were found to be in possession of such quantity and, if, on such division, the quantity fatts lesser than the commerciaI quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act witI not be a hurdte for grant of bait. The ratio seems to be rationat, since, att the accused deating with commerciaI quantity woutd not be benefited by the proceeds of the whole quant'ity, but, woutd be benefited onty by the proceeds of their share of contraband, which probabty woutd be equat.

¶27

Hence, considering the above, this Court opines that this is a fit case for grant of bait to the petit'ioner/accused No.'1 . Accordingly, the CriminaI Petition is aItowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail on his executing a personaI bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand onty) with two sureties for a [ike sum each to the satisfaction of the ll Additional JudiciaL First Ctass Magistrate, Tuni. Further, the petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Kotananduru Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, twice in a

¶28

¶29

week i.e., on every Monday and Wednesday in between 10:00

¶30

A.M. and 05:00^p.M. titt fiting of the charge sheet.

¶31

As a seque[, the miscettaneous apptications, if any

¶32

pending, sha[[ stand ctosed.

¶33

¶34

'fo,

¶35

Stl/- G.li.{.IESIIW-\ o r\SSlSTrtNiI It Ii RAI{ //TRUE COP'// lior;\SSIS'l)\ IIEC IS'TRAIT

¶36

l. The l" Adclitional District & Sessions Jutlge, East Codavari, Il a^{jamahenclravarant} 2. The II Additional Judicial flrst Class Magistrate, Tuni, Vistrkhitpatnam

¶37

The Supelintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnarn

¶38

The Station Flouse Officer, I(otanantluru Police Station. East^(iodavari [)istrict, Rajartrlhcnclravaram

¶39

One^('C lo SRl. SRAVAN KUN4AR NAIDANA A<lvocatc IOPUC]

¶40

Tivo C'Cs to the PUBLIC PROSIICLIIOIf (AP), t{igh C'our1 at lly(lerabad (OUT)

¶41

Onc sparc copv

HIGII COURT

TR,.I

DATED:^08.03.2018

cRr..P.N0.2253^{0F 2018}

¶46

ti..\ I l.

¶47

Karakula Gangaprasad or Prasad v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karakula Gangaprasad or Prasad v. State of Ap.

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

Igbokwe Chukwuebuka Gibson Vs The State of A.P

P. Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Yerramsetti Suresh and 2 others Vs State of Ap.

Kaladindi Sanyasi Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodi Ajay Kumar , Pandu and another Vs State of Ap.

Kota Krishna (A-5) Vs The State of A.P.