ASLAM ALI NAIKWADI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition under Ss. 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioner - Accused No. 6 in NCB F.No. 48/1/5/2021/NCB/SUB-ZONE/HYD registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(c) read with Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, seeking bail.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that on 04.04.2021, on receipt of specific information by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub-Zone that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with three other associates from Maharashtra State are likely to traffic a substantial quantity of Ganja to Osmanabad and Pune via Hyderabad from Sileru, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), in Eicher truck with Registration No. MH 14 BJ 2693 and Swift Dzire Car with Registration No. MH 12 PQ 7837, and the said vehicles are likely to cross Outer Ring Road - Warangal Highway towards Maharashtra State, near Ghatkesar Toll Plaza, at around 23.30 hours, team of NCB proceeded to the said location and on noticing the said car and truck crossing Toll Plaza of Ghatkesar, intercepted the same. It is alleged that on thorough search, they found two plastic gunny bags containing sealed packets in the dickey and on opening the said bags. It is alleged that when weighed the entire seized stock, it is found 46 kgs. of ganja in car and in Eicher Truck, 648 kgs. and basing on the confession of those accused, other accused were arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner Sri S. Sridhar submits that petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.6 and it is alleged that a huge contraband of 640 kgs. is seized in this crime. He submits that initially, co-accused were arrested on 04.04.2021 and basing on their confession, petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2021. He also submits that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, confession of other accused cannot be a basis. According to him, though it is the case of prosecution that petitioner is owner of Eicher vehicle, which was used for transportation of ganja, the said vehicle does not stand in his name. Further, as per the case of prosecution, petitioner was in regular touch with other accused, the said phone number does not stand in the name of petitioner, and in fact, it belongs to his brother and as per the Registration Certificate, petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and it stands in the name of L.W.6. It is submitted that though a commercial quantity is seized in this crime, petitioner is able to satisfy twin conditions under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act. As there are no reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner committed the offence alleged and as he is languishing in jail from the last 100 days, learned counsel submits that his case may be considered for grant of bail.