ERUKALA YADAIAH GOUD ALIAS GIRI v. UNION OF INDIA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed by the Petitioner / A.3 seeking to release him on bail in connection with NDPS SC No.7 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Special Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read 2 with 22(C), 27-A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short „NDPS Act‟).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 05.06.2023, the respondent authorities on reliable information along with mediators visited the scene of offence at CPR Laboratories Private Limited in Atchuthapuram, APSEZ, Lalamkoduru village, Rambilli Mandal, and found manufacturing of Alprazolam. A.1 to A.3 were found at the production block where they were packing the materials in the drums. The suspected material was seized along with equipment in the presence of the laboratory owner. A.1 to A.3 confessed about their involvement in the manufacturing, possession and attempted transportation of the substance.

3. Heard Sri Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB appearing respondent/State. Perused the written synopsis and the material on record.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the present case. It is submitted that the Petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023 and has been in judicial custody ever since, thereby languishing in jail for a period exceeding two years and eight months. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha1. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is a Scientist by profession and has no criminal antecedents. It is contended that 1 SLP (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023, dated 13.07.2023 3 the substance allegedly seized does not fall within the category of psychotropic substances specified in Schedule I of the Rules framed under the NDPS Act, and therefore, the rigours of the said Act would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Sarija Banu @ Janarthani @ Janani & another vs. State2, Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana3, Nijamunisha vs. The State of Gujarat4, Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana5 and State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh6. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the Petitioner. The complaint, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is conspicuously silent regarding the role played by the Petitioner in the alleged offence and no material is placed on record to connect the Petitioner with the commission of the offence. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that there has been a violation of the mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as the Petitioner, though arrested on

07.06.2023, was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, but only after more than 48 hours of arrest. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak