G RAVINDER @ RAVI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is A1 filed the present application under sections 437 and 439 Crimial P.C., 1973 seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No.230 of 2018 on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner by name G.Ravinder @ Ravi, aged about 53 years as per the remand report is A1 among four accused in the above crime dated 27.03.2018. He is in judicial custody since the date of registration of crime.

(3.) The petitioner went unsuccessful earlier in seeking bail including before this Court on merits particularly in Crl.P.No.5534 of 2018 dated 31.05.2018 and the contentions in the bail application are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station while conducting vehicular check at Outer Ring Road, near Peddamberpet, allegedly stopped the car bearing No.AP 31 TVB 0939 with three members proceeding therein, found 48 bags of ganja also from the disclosure and brought the car and the ganja to the police station and handed over to the Inspector, from which the Inspector registered the crime and conducted panchanama at the post crime registration by seizure of 95 kgs. having drawn samples duly packed, sealed by following the procedure alleged concerned, that once panchanama not prepared for recovery from the vehicle at the instance of disclosure by the accused ceases the very presumption under Sec. 35 of the Act and the procedure adopted is illegal and the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal 2016(1) ACJ SC held under Sec. 52A of the Act of drawing samples at the spot of seizure by investigating officer is a violation as per Judge made law, thereby, there is illegality in procedure and there is no procedure under the provisions of the Act followed in the search and seizure concerned and thereby, there is no likelihood of ending the case no conviction from perusal of the material in arriving a reasonable conclusion of prima facie accusation as contemplated by Sec. 37 of the Act and consequently the bar has no application that too, when it is one of the basic principles of the criminal jurisprudence of the presumption of innocence of the accused available and thereby, entitled to the concession of bail and these aspects did not bring to the notice of this Court another Bench in dismissal of the earlier bail application represented by another accused for the petitioner/A1 along with A3 therein.