| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1564
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 6246 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Korukonda Surya Prakash Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Amani Upendra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor |
| Date of Judgment : 18-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Catch Words:
- pre‑arrest bail
- delay
- investigation
3. Summary:
The petitioner, accused No.6, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking pre‑arrest bail for alleged offences under the BNS and NDPS Act. The petitioner argued false implication, lack of specific allegations, and an unexplained ten‑day delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the nascent stage of investigation and the need for custodial interrogation. The court noted the delay, absence of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to possession of ganja, and lack of adverse antecedents. Considering these factors, the court inclined to grant pre‑arrest bail with stringent conditions. The order also referenced a prior similar bail grant in the same case.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused No.6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.292 of 2026 of Rayachoti Urban Police Station, Annamayya District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNS‟) and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the NDPS Act‟).
2. Mr.A.Upendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated as Accused No.6 and that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations that the Petitioner received any money, threatened the complainant, or was present at the place of occurrence. It is also argued that there is an unexplained delay of about ten days in lodging the FIR and that no recovery of ganja was effected from the conscious possession of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner, who is willing to cooperate with the investigation and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner.
3. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”
6. As seen from the record, there is a delay of nearly 10 days in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 24.05.2026 at 10:30 A.M., whereas the complaint was lodged only on 03.06.2026. No convincing explanation has been offered for the said delay. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he was in conscious possession of 150 grams of ganja, nor was any recovery effected pursuant to the confession of the petitioner. The petitioner is Accused No.6. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Urban Police Station, namely, Mr. Vishnu Vardhan, has submitted a typed Special Report, wherein he has mentioned that the petitioner and some other persons were sought to be implicated in the case under the provisions of “the NDPS Act‟. This Court, vide order dated 30.06.2026 in Crl.P.No.4776 of 2026, granted pre-arrest bail to Accused No.1.
7. Having regard to the facts circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.6, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.6.
8. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
i. In the event of his arrest, Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required.
iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
|
| |
