Apurba Sarkar, S/O. Biswanath Sarkar & Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Y. Lakshmana Rao, J

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Cr.No.55 of 2025 of Visakhapatnam GRPS, GRP Vijayawada, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2025, between 12:00 hrs and 14:00 hrs, the complainant, IPF/RPF/Post/Visakhapatnam, along with his staff and CPDS team, while conducting checks at the platforms as part of enforcement duties, apprehended accused A.1 and A.2, who were found in possession of three bags containing 18 packets of dry ganja weighing 28 Kgs, valued at Rs.1,40,000/-. The contraband was seized in the presence of mediators. Investigation revealed that A.1, a cook from West Bengal, addicted to vices and in need of money, had been induced by absconding accused A.3, who runs a ganja business. A.3 offered A.1 Rs.12,000/- per trip and paid him Rs.15,000/- in advance. A.2, also addicted to alcohol and working with A.1, joined him. On 13.02.2025, A.3 delivered three trolley bags of ganja at Vizianagaram, giving one bag each to A.1 and A.2, while retaining one himself. On 14.02.2025, while proceeding towards Gudur, A.3 handed his bag to A.1 and went to purchase tickets. In the meantime, A.1 and A.2 were apprehended by the police at Visakhapatnam Railway Station. The seized contraband and the accused were handed over to Visakhapatnam GRPS, where a case was registered and A.1 and A.2 were remanded to judicial custody. A.3 is absconding.

Sri G.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

As seen from the record, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were indulged in possession and transportation of 28.00 kgs of ganja. Although it is a commercial quantity, the petitioners have been languishing in jail since 14.02.2025. Nearly for the past 186 days they have been in judicial custody. The petitioner/Accused No.1 is a resident of Raypur, P.S. Domkal, Nawda Block, Murshidabad District, West Bengal State. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is a resident of Pachari Village, Bhagatpur Post, Ataraulia, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh State. The material portion of the investigation is completed. All the witnesses of the prosecution are official witnesses. Hence, the question of the petitioners influencing or threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation may not arise.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedent against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and no report was filed before the learned Court below by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned seeking for extension period of judicial custody of the petitioners upto one year by indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period.

Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 has an indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period.

Keeping the petitioners in judicial custody for an indefinite period would not serve any purpose, inasmuch as it takes an indefinite time for the learned Trial Court to take up the matter for trial.

Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in judicial custody for the past 186 days, the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners, and their alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions:

i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways -Cum-VI Additional Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam.

ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.

iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required.

vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.