GUNDLURU RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A.1 in Sessions Case No.96 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. He is charged with offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27-A, 28, 29 and 32-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'), and Section 464 IPC. By way of this petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC, he seeks regular bail.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that A.2 and A.3 in Sessions Case No.96 of 2017 were apprehended with 231.015 Kgs of Amphetamine, a psychotropic substance, in their possession. The role of the petitioner-A.1 in the manufacture and trafficking of this psychotropic substance came to light during the interrogation of A.2 and A.3. The petitioner-A.1 was accordingly served with summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and he appeared before the Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad (NCB), on 03.10.2016. Based on the voluntary statement allegedly made by him on 04.10.2016, the petitioner-A.1 was arrested on the said day. Thereafter, on 26.10.2016, an independent source informed the NCB that a house was taken on rent by the petitioner-A.1 at Vayupuri in Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, and a team of officers from the NCB proceeded to this rented accommodation of the petitioner-A.1 and conducted search and seizure operations in accordance with the due procedure. In the course thereof, 9.1 Kgs of Amphetamine was seized along with various items, which were indicative of manufacture of this psychotropic substance having been undertaken in the said rented accommodation. This, broadly, was the foundation of the case laid against the petitioner-A.1.

(3.) Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1, would point out that the petitioner-A.1 has been in custody since 04.10.2016 and assert that as the charge-sheet was filed in June, 2017, there is no reason to continue his detention. He would also point out that the so-called voluntary confessional statement made by the petitioner-A.1 was retracted thereafter and there was no credible information at this stage to link him with the charged offences. As regards the seizure of over 9 Kgs of Amphetamine from the rented premises of the petitioner-A.1, the learned counsel would contend that no value can be attached to the search and seizure operations, as the petitioner-A.1 was not taken to the said premises during these operations and the only witnesses to the so-called seizure of the Amphetamine were some random persons. The learned counsel would further point out that A.3 in this case has already been granted bail and assert that this is a fit case for grant of relief to the petitioner-A.1 on the same lines.