ABDUL AZIZ Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A.2 & A.3 in NCB.F.No.48/1/2/2013/NCB/HYD of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB, for short) South Zone, Hyderabad. They allegedly committed offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 22, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short). Out of 7 accused, 6 accused moved for grant of bail. I granted bail to A.5 & A.6 and dismissed the bail application so far as A.4 is concerned. Now, A.2 & A.3 moved for grant of bail. A.1 did not seek for grant of bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is:

(3.) Indeed, one of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that A.5 & A.6 had already been enlarged on bail and that A.2 & A.3 also deserved to be enlarged on bail. I am afraid that the complicity of A.5 & A.6 in the commission of the offence is quite distinct from the role played by A.2 and A.3 in the offence. Further, if the analogy of A.5 & A.6 is brought in, it may also be recalled that the bail application of A.4 was dismissed by me. I do not consider it appropriate to dismiss this bail application in limine on the ground that the bail application of A.4 was dismissed nor do I propose to allow this bail application summarily on the ground that A.5 & A.6 had already been enlarged on bail. The case of each of the applicants in the present case has its own special dimensions. Consequently, each of the cases stands separately all by itself. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to deal with the case of A.2 & A.3 independently.