Loading..
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985,and
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985,and

    KOTHEM SURYA PRAKASH RAO v. THE STATE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

    3

    HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATHI

    MAIN CASE No: Crl.A.No.454 of 2024

    PROCEEDING SHEET

    Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE
    12. 11.11.2024 HN,J I.A.No.1 of 2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/Accused 1 & 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. The appellants are convicted in N.S.C.No.206 of 2016 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Anakapalli. The appellants are sentenced to undergo RigorousImprisonment for a period of ten years for the offense punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985,and also pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in default of payment of the fine amount, both shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 1stappellant is a HIV patient and that the 2ndappellant is his mother-in-law. The 1st appellant has a daughter studying 5th standard and it would be the interest of the family of the 1stappellanttoenlarge him on bail for better treatment and recovery. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the appellants are involved in Crime No.60 of 2016and that the punishment imposed on them isa serious punishment and if any leniencyis shown by this Court in granting a bail, it may lead to the appellantsindulging in

    1

    similar offenses, which would be detrimental for the society. The appellantshave been in jail since 05.07.2024. The appellants were out onbail throughout the trial. As seen from the judgment, no individual witness except the Investigating Officer has supported the case of prosecution. Considering all these factors, this Court inclined to suspend the sentence of imprisonment only. Consequently, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing twosureties of Rs.20,000/- eachto the satisfaction of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court at Anakapalli.

    ______

    HN, J

    Crl.A.No.454 of 2024

    Admit. Post the matter in usual course. ______

    HN, J

    NKA

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    KOTHEM SURYA PRAKASH RAO v. THE STATE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    (Nov 11, 2024)