MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News