Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26484 (AP)

Jafar Yusuf Quresh v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/7717/2025 · 2025-07-29

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010374772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7717/2025 Between: Jafar Yusuf Quresh and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. ABDUS SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in Crime No.50 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, registered for the offences punishable 2 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 22.03.2025 the RPSI, GRP Police Station, Vizianagaram while conducting general checking on platforms in Vizianagaram railway station along with his staff, at about 13.15 hours they reached platform No.1 of Vizianagaram Railway Station and on seeing them one male person and one female person tried to flee away from there with bags. On that the police chased them and caught hold the said persons who are identified as A1 and A2 in this case. On being questioned, A1 and A2 disclosed their identity particulars and further confessed that in order to earn easy money they are transporting the ganja which was handed over to them by one Chitra. Thereafter, the RPSI verified the bags and found total 31 kgs of ganja, got drafted mediators report and registered the case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Sri Abdus Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of their family and, therefore, their continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioners undertakes to 3 strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 6. The petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 31 kgs of ganja. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the seized substance does not fall within the definition of ganja. This contention cannot be accepted at this stage, as the report from the chemical analyst confirming whether the substance is indeed ganja has not yet been received. 7. Be that as it may, the learned Judicial Magistrate has certified that the contraband is ganja. The statutory period of 180 days has not yet lapsed. 8. Since the accusation appears to be well founded, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have, prima facie, committed the offence. There is no 4 reason to believe that they would not commit a similar offence in the future. Finding no merits in the present petition, the criminal petition is hereby dismissed. There are no merits in the present petition, the criminal petition is dismissed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. 10. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.07.2025 S D P 5 124 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7717 of 2025 Date:30.07.2025 S D P