| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1385
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5167 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Ajith Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Boosara V N Praveen Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 31-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 & 483 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Catch Words:
- bail
- judicial custody
- investigation
- witnesses
- stringent conditions
3. Summary:
The Criminal Petition under the BNSS seeks bail for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 charged under the NDPS Act for possession of 21.300 kg of ganja. The petitioners claim innocence and hardship, while the prosecution argues the investigation is ongoing. The court notes the petitioners have been in judicial custody for 183 days, exceeding the statutory period, and that most of the investigation is complete with nine witnesses examined. No adverse antecedents are recorded, and the petitioners have fixed residences. Considering these facts, the court deems bail appropriate with strict conditions to prevent interference with the investigation. Accordingly, the bail is granted subject to a bond, regular reporting, non‑offence undertaking, cooperation with investigators, non‑inducement of witnesses, and surrender of passports.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail in Crime No.38 of 2026 of Visakhapatnam Police Station, GRP Vijayawada, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).
2. Mr.B.V.N.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the Police. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners, submits 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 submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case. The allegation against the Petitioners is that they were indulged in the commission of the offence involving 21.300 kgs of ganja. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioners. The Petitioners were arrested on 29.01.2026. They have been in judicial custody for the past 183 days, which is beyond the statutory period. No application seeking extension of judicial custody has been filed. So far, 9 witnesses have been examined. The substantial portion of the investigation is completed. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are permanent residents of Chennai, Tamil Nadu State. They have got fixed abode. If the Petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of their threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail with some stringent conditions.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways-cum-VI Additional Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.
iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.
vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
|
| |
