| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1804
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7384 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Narottham Haldar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: N. Pavan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 16-09-2026 |
| 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
- Charge‑sheet
- Investigation
- Surety
- Bond
- Judicial custody
- Fixed abode
- Conditions of bail
3. Summary:
The criminal petition under the BNSS seeks bail for accused Nos. 3 and 4 charged under the NDPS Act for possession of 22 kg of ganja. The petitioners claim innocence and hardship, while the prosecution opposes bail citing ongoing investigation and risk of absconding. The court notes this is the second bail application; the first was dismissed and the charge‑sheet has not been filed even after 180 days. Considering the nature of the offence, the petitioners’ residence, and lack of prior adverse antecedents (except one for Accused 3), the court decides to grant bail with stringent conditions, including bonds, sureties, regular reporting, cooperation with investigators, and travel restrictions.
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.3 and 4 on bail in Crime No.29 of 2026 of Yetapaka Police Station, Polavaram District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 herein for the 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.N.Pavan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents 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. They are law-abiding citizens. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting 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. As seen from the record, this is the second bail application filed by the petitioners. This Court, in Crl.P.No.6114 of 2026, vide order dated 03.08.2026, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.3 and 4. They were allegedly found in conscious possession of and transporting 22.00 kgs of ganja, which is less than commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 15.03.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 185 days. Even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner/Accused No.3. However, no similar adverse antecedent is reported against the petitioner/Accused No.4. The petitioners are permanent residents of the State of Odisha and have got fixed abode.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail with some stringent conditions.
7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
i. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.
iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 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.
iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 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.3 and 4 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.
vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 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.
viii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they state that they do not have passports, the Petitioners shall file an affidavit to that effect.
|
| |