logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 APHC 1732 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 12022 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Burri Praveen Kumar Alias Prema Sai Alias Deo Sai Alias Sai Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By its Public Prosecutor, Court of A. P. Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Sullurpet Police Station.Tirupati District
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Vajja Chethan Kumar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 27-11-2025
Head Note :-
BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 -
Judgment :-

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in Crime No.144 of 2025 of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.7 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. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. As seen from the record, this Court in Crl.P.No.9406 of 2025 enlarged Accused No.2 on bail with certain stringent conditions. Similarly, this Court in Crl.P.No.8721 of 2025 enlarged Accused Nos.1, 4, 5, and 6 on bail with certain stringent conditions. The Petitioner is also standing on a similar footing as the other accused. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 98 days. He is a permanent resident of Machavaram Village, Kandukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and has a fixed abode. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are two adverse antecedents of a similar nature under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ registered against the Petitioner, and a case under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘the IPC’) registered against him.

4. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.7 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. 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.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.7, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail with some stringent conditions.

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

                  i. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing 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 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, Tirupati District.

                  ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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.7 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.7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  v. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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. If the petitioner is arraigned or found indulging in any NDPS case, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.

                  vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.7 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.

 
  CDJLawJournal