logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1850 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 8566 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Pedapudi Jyothik Swamy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, Amaravati
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 05-10-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 & 483 -
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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.205 of 2026 of Gopalapatnam 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. Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he 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. He is a law-abiding citizen. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal 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. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 in this case. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was indulged in dealing with 4.350 kgs of Ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 to 3. The Petitioner was arrested on 19.08.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. This Court, in Crl.P.No.8393 of 2026 vide order dated 28.09.2026 enlarged Accused No.5 on regular bail in this crime. So far, four witnesses have been examined. They are all material and official witnesses. Substantial portion of the investigation with regard to the alleged role played by the Petitioner concerned is completed.

6. There is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the Petitioner, i.e., Cr.No.149 of 2022 of Gopalapatnam Police Station. There are three criminal adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the I.P.C.,’). They are: (1) Cr.No.05 of 2022 under Section 324 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ of Gopalapatnam Police Station; (2) Cr.No.102 of 2024 under Section 307 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ of Gopalapatnam Police Station; and (3) Cr.No.310 of 2023 under Section 379 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ of Kancharapalem Police Station. It is well settled that the Petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2020) 11 SCC 648) at para No.7 observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.

7. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Gopalapatnam Village, Visakhapatnam. 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.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail with some stringent conditions.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the Charge Sheet.

                  iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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.4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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.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.

                  vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal