logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 061 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 180 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
Parties : Gude Dilip Kumar Alias Deepu Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Through SHO Maharanipeta, PS High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 16-01-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437/438/439/482 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail, in Cr.No 107/2025 on the file of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam)

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/A2 on bail in Cr.No.107 of 2025 on the file of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the petitioner/A2 herein for the offence 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. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, the Accused Nos.3 to 5 were in possession of 1.5 kgs of liquid ganja/hash oil, when they were caught red handed while they were carrying the same. Subsequently, the present Crime was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 on the confession made by A3 to A5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence, nor any contraband seized from his custody. He would further submit that, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case based on the confession made by A3 to A5.

4. He would further submit that the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of the family, if the petitioner is not granted bail, the family members will be put to severe hardship.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that all the accused were released on bail including A1 by this Court in Crl.P.No.11782 of 2025.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the contraband seized from A3 to A5 is a commercial quantity.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, by taking into consideration of the fact that all the accused were already released on bail, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following conditions:

                  (i) The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for like sum each, to the satisfaction of learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

                  (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

                  (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without obtaining prior permission from the trial Court.

                  (iv) The petitioner shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

                  (v) The petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police officer.

                  As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal