It should be noted that, in the case of murder, the accused kill one or two people, while the persons dealing with drugs are towers to death or blow the lives of innocent young people who are vulnerable: they have deleterious effects and deadly effects on society, they are a danger to society, even when temporarily released. Reason can be a major stake and involve illegal profit, was referred by Justice T.Vinod Kumar from the Telangana High Court in the matter of Dharavath Aravind versus State of Telangana [CRIMINAL PETITION No.6468 of 2020]
This order was passed for the facts where the learned counsel for petitioner particular petitioner No.1 is a vehicle owner and driver who was transported by contraband substance (cannabis) after the vehicle was rented by accused No.4, while the petitioner No.2 only came into car to give the petitioner/A-1 company during their trip from East Godavari to Hyderabad. Learned Counsel, however, tried to urge regular bail for humanitarian reasons by stating that petitioner No.1 is his family’s only breadwinner and his livelihood is being provided by hiring the car, agreed to carry a parcel weighing approximately 43 kg, on the request of the accused No. 4 for having been delivered to his destination.
Furthermore, a learned counsel would argue that there is no record previously of involvement of petitioners in similar offences. It is also argued that there is no material to link petitioners with the offence except for the declaration that the investigating agency has been made confessional. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioners could be granted bail because all the witnesses have been examined and because their declarations have been recorded by the investigating authorities. The learned lawyer relies on the orders of this court’s coordinating bench in Crl.P. No. 6634, 2020, in support of his submissions.
The additional learned public prosecutor would further argue that the criminal investigation is underway and that six witnesses have been examined as of today. The learned supplementary public prosecutor further states that the co-accused No. A.3 and A.4 are still abstaining from the above crime and FSL is also awaiting the report. Furthermore, according to the confessional declaration given by the petitioners to the investigating authority in the RE, the learned Additional Public Public Prosecutor would submit that in the retention report it would be clear that the petitioners involved themselves in the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act to make more money easily by secretly transport the ganja, hence the claim.
For the rest of the apprenticed lawyer’s submission for the petitioners on non-compliance by the obligatory requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned public prosecution would argue that such measures were not attracted, since the petitioner was not searched for personally and the offending substance was detected during the search in the vehicle. The learned public prosecutor relied on an Apex court judgement in the Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors in support of the above presentation.
This Court, having taken due account of the presentations made as above, must first determine whether a reasonable ground for granting a bail exists and in view of the law established by the Apex Court. The use of the expression “reasonable grounds” within the framework of the non-obstante clause in which Article 38 of the NDPS Act implies that it is not only a prima facie case but also something more. The petitioners were found in the circumstances of this case to have the prohibited substance (narcotics) while carrying them.
Consequently, the bail petition has no merit and, if advised, has been rejected, reserving the petitioner the freedom to file a new petition in a suitable phase according to the law. The above remarks are not to be taken as an opinion on the merits but only for the purposes of awarding the immediate bail petition.
