| |
CDJ 2025 APHC 1730
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 10861 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Guda Venkata Ramana Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, (Maharanipeta Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District. |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 27-11-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 437 and 439 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
2. Catch Words:
bail, judicial custody, NDPS, procedural violation, search
3. Summary:
The petition under Cr.P.C. §§ 437, 439 and BNSS §§ 480, 483 seeks bail for Accused No. 3 in an NDPS case involving 1.5 kg of liquid ganja. The accused was arrested on 30‑07‑2025 and has been in judicial custody for 119 days. The defence argues the search was not conducted before a Gazetted Officer, but the court notes no shortage of such officers and treats the mediators’ report as a confession barred by Evidence Act § 25. Considering the absence of adverse antecedents, the accused’s fixed residence, and the lengthy trial, the court deems continued custody unnecessary. Bail is granted with stringent conditions, including a bond, sureties, regular court appearances, travel restrictions, and non‑interference with witnesses.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.107 of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he was found in possession of 1.5 kgs of liquid ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was spot- arrested. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet after completion of thorough investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 119 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The mediators are ward women police personnel, who belong to the Police Department. The search was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. However, there is a reference in the mediators’ report that the accused informed the police that they need not be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, and to that extent, a consent was given by them.
5. This Court, in Crl.P.No.9578 of 2025, of course in a different case, enlarged the accused therein on the ground that the samples were drawn and collected by an officer of the Police Department, and not in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, resulting in a procedural violation. In this case also, the alleged recovery took place in Visakhapatnam City where sufficient numbers of Gazetted Officers are available. There is no explanation mentioned in the mediators’ report as to why the search or the preparation of the mediators’ report was not done in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. There is no dearth of Gazetted Officers in Visakhapatnam District. Whatever is stated in the mediators’ report is nothing but a confession before a police officer, which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
6. It will take considerable length of time for the learned Trial Court to take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Until such time, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody would not serve any purpose. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Maddigaruvu, Munchingput, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. He has got fixed abode. If he is enlarged on bail with some stringent conditions, he may not evade the process of law. There are no similar or criminal adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner/Accused No.3.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail with the following stringent conditions:
i. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he 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 II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
ii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.
iii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court.
iv. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
|
| |
