Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

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