The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled on Criminal Petition No. 5656 of 2024, filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking the release of the petitioner (A6) on regular bail. The case, registered as Crime No. 35 of 2024 at Koyyuru Police Station in Alluri Sitharama Raju District, involves the seizure of a large quantity of contraband—554.73 kg of Ganja—from the possession of the petitioner and other accused. The arrest took place on March 31, 2024, and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since then. The case falls under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Important Legal Issues:
The core legal issue in this case revolves around compliance with procedural safeguards outlined under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 55, which mandates the immediate sealing of seized contraband by the seizing officer. The court had to determine whether any procedural lapses occurred during the seizure and whether such lapses could justify the granting of bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the procedural safeguards, particularly those under Section 55 of the NDPS Act, were not adhered to. The learned counsel cited the case of Ouseph v. State of Kerala (2004) 10 SCC 647, where it was held that while Section 55 is not mandatory, non-compliance could lead to the possibility of tampering with the seized contraband, thereby creating reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, after hearing both sides, observed that the procedural safeguards under Section 55 of the NDPS Act appeared to have been violated. The court noted that the mediator’s report and the remand report did not contain details regarding the packing and sealing of the contraband, leading to “a clear doubt” about the proper handling of the seized material.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence, stating:
“When such sealing was not done, it gives rise to a possibility to think that what was seized could be tampered. It was in such circumstances, courts are right in entertaining a reasonable doubt.”
Justice Sagar, taking into account the period of detention, the progress of the investigation, and the procedural lapses, concluded that continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary. Consequently, the court granted bail, subject to the petitioner providing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.
The court also imposed conditions for the petitioner to mark his attendance before the investigating officer on the 1st and 15th of every month and not to induce or threaten any person acquainted with the case facts. The petitioner is also required to be available for the investigation as and when required.
Parties Involved:
– Petitioner: A6 (name not specified in the judgment).
– Respondent: The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Sri A. Sai Naveen
