Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High 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

Similar News