Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

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