Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

AP High Court Grants Bail in 33 kg Hashish Oil Case: Parity and Lack of Criminal Record Crucial Factors

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Accused drivers in NDPS Act case granted bail; court emphasizes similar bail for co-accused and no previous criminal history.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, presided by Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, granted bail to Viyyapu Suresh and Saneesh V.S., accused in a high-profile narcotics case involving the transportation of 33 kg of hashish oil. The court’s decision highlighted the principle of parity with a co-accused and the lack of previous criminal involvement as pivotal factors in the bail grant.

The case emerged from an operation on February 4, 2024, when police, acting on credible information, apprehended four individuals during a vehicle check at a jeep stand in G. Madugula. The arrested individuals, including Viyyapu Suresh and Saneesh V.S., were allegedly involved in the transportation of 33 kg of hashish oil, also known as liquid ganja. The accused were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The court noted the principle of parity, emphasizing that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail by the Special Court. “Considering that A.4, who faces similar charges, was granted bail, it is reasonable to extend the same to the petitioners, given their lack of previous criminal record,” Justice Pratapa stated.

Justice Pratapa underscored the petitioners’ lack of prior criminal history. The prosecution acknowledged that Suresh and Saneesh had no previous involvement in criminal activities, which the court considered in its decision. “The absence of any prior criminal record is a significant factor that weighs in favor of granting bail,” the judgment noted.

The court extensively discussed the balance between the severity of the charges and the accused’s rights. It reiterated that the mere gravity of an offense under the NDPS Act does not automatically preclude bail, especially when mitigating factors, such as no previous criminal record and parity with co-accused, are present. “While the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the judicial system must also ensure fairness and parity,” Justice Pratapa observed.

“The severity of the allegations alone cannot be the sole criterion for denying bail, especially when the petitioners’ role appears limited and devoid of prior criminal conduct,” the court remarked.

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Viyyapu Suresh and Saneesh V.S. sends a clear message about judicial fairness and the importance of considering individual circumstances, such as parity with co-accused and lack of criminal history. This ruling is expected to influence future cases under the NDPS Act, reinforcing the necessity of a balanced approach in bail considerations.

 

Date of Decision: 16th May 2024

Viyyapu Suresh & Saneesh V.S. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Similar News