IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU.
CCH.33.
PRESENT:
SMT. B.S. JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS),
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Crl. Misc.No.6601/2022
Petitioner :
(accused No.2)
Guttula Teju, S/o Surynarayana,
aged about 28 years, KPR Towers­1,
GF­1, Prasadampadu, Near Saibaba
Temple, Vijayawada, Andhra
Pradesh­08
(By Sri BJ., Adv.)
V/S.

Respondent :
State by Customs (CIU), Bangalore.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
This is the second bail petition U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.,
filed by the petitioner to enlarge him on bail, in OR
No.02/2022­23
registered
for
the
offences
U/Sec.8(c), 9A, 25A, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

punishable
2
2. The prevalent grounds urged seeking bail:­
That the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen.
He has not committed any offence much less the offence as
alleged. He has been falsely implicated by the respondent in
this case.

It is urged that a parcel was booked by one
Chundru Geetha Kiran from Bangalore to Canada, but it was
sent to Ontario. Further, it is urged that the consignment was
not
belonging
to
the
petitioner.

He
has
collected
the
consignment of one Gopi Sai who is the customer of DST
courier at Vijayawada. The petitioner has received Rs.15,200/­
from K Gopi Sai for booking the consignment to Australia.
Complainant has not complied the mandatory provisions of
NDPS Act at the time of seizure. Though the alleged offence is
non bailable, but is neither punishable with imprisonment for
life or death sentence. Further, it is contended that he is the
sole care taker of the family.

The petitioner is permanent
resident of the address shown in the cause title. If he is
enlarged on bail he would abide by the conditions which are
going to be imposed by this court. He is ready to offer surety
for his due appearance before this court.

CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
3
He has filed addl., grounds seeking bail wherein he has
stated that his wife is not well and there is nobody to take care
of his wife.

With these main pleas sought to grant bail.

Hence, sought to grant bail.

3. The prosecution while opposing the bail petition
contended that the present petitioner came to DHL Express
India Pvt., Ltd., and claimed the consignment.

When the Io
requested him to identify the package received under AWB
No.3155721645 dated 9.3.2022 as to whether the said parcel
presented for examination by DHL Express is the same cargo
which was originally sent under AWB No.5662282124, the
petitioner stated that it was the same package that was
originally sent by him and he had come to receive the same.
The package contained the tape bearing the name DST courier
strapped around the package.

M/s.DHL Express, Bangalore
showed the correspondences namely Shipment airway bill
issued by the M/s.DST Courier, Hyderabad with the details of
mobile
No.7995877995
petitioner,
email
with
the
signature
correspondences
from
of
present
him
to
4
Intl@worldfirst.in claiming the ownership of the shipment,
handwritten letter addressed to M/s.DHL Express, Bangalore
requesting to return the parcel to his address No.3­32,
Panchayithi road, Nagullanka, Tatipaka, East Godavari, AP
533249 and an authorisation for export shipment. Further the
petitioner has given letter addressed to DHL Express Bangalore
on 28.4.2022 claiming the ownership of the parcel.

The
petitioner was present at the time of drawing of seizure
mahazar.

Before opening the parcel an enquiry has been
conducted from DHL., Bangalore, it was informed that it is a
switched cargo which means the cargo was shipped to wrong
consignee; that in the instant case, the shipment sent by
Chundru Geetha Kiran, India, (consignor) to Mr. Ranjit Jha,
Ontario, Canada (consignee) was a wrong shipment; that
M/s,.DHL
M/s.World
Bangalore
First
received
the
International
consignment
Courier
and
through
Cargo,
Secunderaabad and the same was received at M/s,.DHL
Hyderabad branch and it was sent to DHL Express, Bangalore
for export.

The said correspondences were provided by
M/s.DHL Bangalore. The details has been given to in the
5
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
objection statement. In the voluntary statement petitioner has
stated that he has used his Aadhaar card to export the cargo
which is belonging to one K Gopi Sai. It is further contended
that petitioner is working as a courier agency Manager and he
has used his Aadhaar card particulars to his KYC document to
book consignment to earn extra money. He has admitted that
he is the owner of the goods.
chudidars, nights.
concealed.

The goods contain sarees,
Inside the said articles, drugs was
The I.O has seized 4.496 Kgs., of Ephedrine.

There are sufficient material available against the petitioner,
and
the
said
offences
are
punishable
with
rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years
which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine.
In the event of his release he may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. He may involve himself in similar offences.

With
these specific pleas sought to reject the bail plea of the
petitioner.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6
5. The points that arise for my consideration are as here
under:
1. Whether petitioner has made out
sufficient grounds to enlarge him on
bail?
2. What order?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:­ The Inspector of Customs, CIU, Airport
and Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore has put the criminal law
into motion. The gist of the allegation reads as here under:­
On 29.4.2022 based on the credible information that
during x­ray scanning of a courier shipment covered under
HAWB No.3155721645 dated 9.3.2022 that some organic
materials
were
found
consignment/shipment.

concealed
inside
the
said
The said shipment was a re­import
courier cargo that the export of shipment was originally made
to one Ranjit Jha, Ontario, Canada by Smt.Chundru Geetha
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
7
Kiran of Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India. The said cargo
was exported through DHL Express to Canada but the
consignee rejected the parcel stating that it does not belong to
him and therefore it was shipped back to India and the same
arrived at Bangalore on 9.3.2022.

On enquiry with DHL.,
Bangalore it was informed that the said import is a switched
cargo which means the cargo was shipped to wrong consignee
that in the instant case the shipment sent to Canada was
actually booked to Australia due to wrong pasting of the
consignment No. Further, the DHL express showed the
correspondences with one Mr Guttula Teja claiming the
ownership of the shipment.

The complainant provided an
opportunity to the petitioner to claim the ownership of the
switched cargo on 28.4.2022 before the open examination of
the consignment. The petitioner has claimed the ownership of
the
consignment.

Thereafter,
they
have
recorded
the
statements of the present petitioner who was working in DST
courier and one Sandeep Kumar Naik Bukke of M/s.World
First International Courier and Cargo, Hyderabad who have
visited DHL Express to collect the cargo by establishing their
8
identity.

On
29.4.2022
the
complainant
secured
two
independent witnesses and asked the Guttula Teja to identify
the cargo.

He has identified the same.

panchas the said cargo was opened.

In the presence of
It contained sarees,
nighties and chudidars. On opening the dress a transparent
polythene packet containing white coloured powder was
revealed kept hidden in the fold of the dress. On testing the
said powder using the DD kit, it indicated presence of
Ephedrine.

In
all
4.496
Kgs.,
of
Ephedrine
is
seized.

Incriminating substances were seized under detail mahazar.
The petitioner herein has given his mobile No., email
correspondences to Intl@wordfirst.in claiming the ownership of
shipment.

The
DHL
express
Bangalore
showed
the
correspondences issued by DST Courier, Hyderabad showing
the hand written
letter
of
petitioner along with
email
correspondences requesting to return the parcel to his
address. His statement came to be recorded. Basing on the
statement of petitioner and the documentary evidence collected
by the investigating agency in regard to the claim of ownership
of parcel by the petitioner herein he has been arrested and a
9
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
detail report is prepared. Basing on the report, a case in
OR.No.02/2022­23 registered for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 8(c), 9A, 25A, 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act against the
petitioner and another. The petitioner is produced before the
court and remanded to judicial custody.

8. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that search and seizure are vitiated by inherent
procedural impropriety. The mandatory provisions of law have
not been followed thereby causing serious doubt on the
investigation, search and seizure procedure.

He is no way
connected to the drugs which were seized in the case. the
parcel was booked by one Chundru Geetha Kiran from
Bangalore to Canada, but it was sent to Ontario. Further, it is
urged that the consignment was not belonging to the
petitioner. He has collected the consignment of one Gopi Sai
who is the customer of DST courier at Vijayawada.

The
petitioner has received Rs.15,200/­ from K Gopi Sai for
booking the consignment to Australia. Further custodial
interrogation is not warranted. It is further argued that seized
10
contraband is a controlled substance, therefore, rigors of
Sec.37 of NDPS Act is not applicable.

In support of his
contention he has referred to the order of Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay in Rafael Palafox Garcia Vs., Union of India 2009
Crl.L.J.446 , K P Sadath and another Vs., State of Karnataka
in 2002 Crl.L.J. 101, Manoj Gupta Vs., NCB.

9. It is argued by the prosecution that the petitioner has
committed heinous offence and it is punishable with RI upto
20 years. There are prima­facie material available against him.

10.

On careful analysis of rival contentions and the
prosecution papers available on record, the investigating
agency seized 4.496 Kgs., of Ephedrine under the seizure
panchanama.

The petitioner herein as per the documents
provided by M/s.DST Courier, Hyderabad to the M/s.DHL
Express, Bangalore he has provided his phone no., email
correspondences, hand written letter to
claiming the ownership of shipment.

Intl@wordfirst.in
He has requested
M/s.DHL Express, Bangalore to return the parcel to his
address Tatipaka, East Godavari Andhra Pradesh.

When the
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
11
parcel was opened it was containing ladies apparels but in that
a transparent polythene packet containing white colour powder
was found hidden in the dress. When it was tested with DD
kit it gave positive result for ephedrine.

It was valued at
Rs.20,00,000/­ per Kg. The value of ephedrine seized in the
case is Rs.9 crores approximately.

Ephedrine is a narcotic
substance/controlled substance injuries to the health of
human being.
The petitioner herein is prosecuted in another criminal
case which is pending in Cr.No.403/2020 for the offences
punishable U/s.420, 467, 471 R/w.Sec.24 of IPC., and
Sec.8(c), 22, 25, 25A and 29 of NDPS Act of Patamatta PS.,
Vijayawada. In the said case he has been granted bail. The
investigation in the case is concluded and final report has been
submitted. Further custodial detention of the petitioner is not
required in the circumstances of the case.

11. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the
order of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Rafael Palafox
Garcia Vs., Union of India 2009 Crl.L.J.446 , K P Sadath and
12
another Vs., State of Karnataka in 2002 Crl.L.J. 101, Manoj
Gupta Vs., NCB.
I have gone through the order of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the said case, the bail plea
of the accused came to be entertained by referring to previous
judgments of the said court. It is discussed in the order that
the concept of commercial quantity does not apply to
controlled substance in view of the provisions relating to
commercial quantity specially Sec.2(vii)(a) and Sec.2(vii)(d) of
the accused and the notification issued by govt., specifying the
small quantities and commercial quantities. In the said case
the investigation was concluded and charge sheet came to be
filed.

On looking to the facts of the said case the Hon’ble
High Court has granted bail to the petitioner.

But, in the
instant case, the investigation is pending. The FSL report is
not yet received. Further, the petitioner in the instant case is
also prosecuted in Cr.No.403/2020 of Patamatta PS., and is
having criminal antecedents. Therefore, the order of Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay with due respect may not be made
applicable to the present facts.

For a similar proposition he
13
CCH­33
Crl.Misc.6601/2022
has referred to the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as the
investigation in the case is pending and accused is having
criminal antecedents and is prosecuted under another NDPS
Act the order of grant of bail as opined in the order of Bombay
High court may not be made applicable to the present
petitioner.

12. in the present case the petitioner is seeking bail on
additional grounds that his wife is not well and there is nobody
to take care, he has to look after his wife. Further the medical
report of wife of petitioner is produced. On looking to the said
document the wife of petitioner is suffering from ill­health.
Petitioner has to take care his wife for medical treatment. In
the instant case the petitioner is no more required for the
purpose of investigation, as the final report is filed in the case.
if now, by imposing conditions interim bail is granted to the
petitioner to take care of his wife by taking her to hospital, it
would not in any way hamper the trial of the case. Hence, I
proceed to answer the point from consideration in the
affirmative.

14
15. Point No.2:­ In the result, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of
Cr.P.C is allowed in part.
The petitioner is released on interim bail for a
period of 03 months from the date of his release with
the following conditions:­
1. Petitioner shall execute personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for
the likesum.
2.

He shall surrender before this court
before expiry of 6 months from the date
of his release.

3.

He shall not tamper the witness or
abscond.

4. He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence while on bail.
5.

He shall produce the medical report for
undergoing treatment once in a month reporting
the progress of his health to the court.

[Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed and
computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in
Open Court on this the 6th day of August 2022]
(B. S. JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE,
(NDPS) : BENGALURU.
CN/*