J Vasantha Reddy Alias Vasanth Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J

Heard,

Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.287 of 2024 of V. Kota Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7 read with 8-B-2 APPA, 2023.

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2025 at about 08.00 A.M., Near Bairupalli Cross, on V. Kota-Pernumbut Road, V. Kota Mandal, Accused No.1/M.Reddeppa, was caught during a vehicle check transporting 192 Tetra Packets of 90 ML Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whisky (17.280 liters, worth Rs.7,680/-) on a motorcycle (Reg.No.KA 03 HH 0677). The Liquor was allegedly purchased from the petitioner/accused No.2 by name J. Vasantha Reddy, for illegal sale. The Police arrested the accused No.1 and the contraband along with motorcycle were seized under a Maharzanama, with one tetra packet sealed for chemical analysis. The petitioner/accused No.2 is found absconding and based on the mediators’ report, the Police registered the above crime against the accused. Hence the FIR.

The entire arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 based on confession statement of accused No.1, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and as per the settled principles of law, the confessional statements cannot be taken into account. The aforesaid proposition is well settled in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 11 SCC 600, wherein it has categorically observed that the confessional statements cannot be a basis to bring the other accused or witnesses on record.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had advanced his arguments opposing the petition and stated that the petitioner/accused No.2 shall not be released on bail much less anticipatory and further argued that whole case is based on the petitioner/accused No.2 himself.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2 and also keeping in view the said law the confessional statement cannot be the basis to bring the other accused or witnesses into frame. Hence, this Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused No.2.

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

I. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting police officials;

II. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall make himself available for investigation as and when required;

III. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses;

IV. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

V. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

VI. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

VII. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall co-operate with the investigation and also attend as and when required by the investigation agency-State. Any deviation or contravention in this regard, the Respondent/State is at liberty to arrest the petitioner/accused No.2.