| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1809
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7888 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Turimella Bharath Chandra Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutorthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Simhachalam Karukola, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)
- Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’)
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Judicial custody
- Confessional statements
- Investigation
- Stringent conditions
- Sureties
- Charge sheet
- Absconding
- Witness tampering
3. Summary:
The Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS seeks bail for Accused No. 6, charged under the NDPS Act. The petitioner claims innocence, cites hardship to dependents, and offers to comply with conditions. The prosecution opposes bail, fearing absconding and interference with ongoing investigation. The court notes the petitioner was not found in possession of the narcotics, has no adverse antecedents, and the seized quantity is not commercial. Considering the facts, the court deems bail appropriate with stringent conditions. The petition is therefore allowed, subject to bond, sureties, regular reporting, travel restrictions, and non‑interference directives.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. 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 Petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.283 of 2026 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).
2. Mr.Simhachalam Karukola, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.6 in this case. The Petitioner was not found in possession of 6 kilograms of Ganja. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confessional statements of Accused Nos.1 to 4. The Petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 53 days. The contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the other accused is not a commercial quantity. This Court, in Crl.P.No.6816 of 2026, vide order dated 17.08.2026, enlarged Accused Nos.1 to 3 on regular bail.
6. There are no adverse similar criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He has got fixed abode. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of his interfering with the investigation, threatening witnesses, or tampering with evidence.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.6, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail subject to stringent conditions.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
i. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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 Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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.
|
| |
