Sagurupilli Anil Kumar & Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Y. Lakshmanaa Rao, J

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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in Crime No. 14 of 2025 of Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 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’).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 10.02.2025 at about 12.00 hrs on receipt of credible information, the S.I of Police along with staff rushed to Godess Durgadevi Temple, Santhathota, Kottakki Village junction and conducted vehicle checking, at that time they found unknown driver of a car bearing No. AP 28 DY 4509 (Original No. DL 8 CAP 0153) coming towards Ramabhadrapuram side, on seeing the police, the inmate in the car stopped the car and escaped. Then the Police found 147 Kgs of ganja, seized in the said vehicle and registered the above case.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioners to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioners are the sole earning member of his family and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioners undertake to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail.

It is further submitted that the Petitioners are a permanent resident of Dukkavanipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition.

ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioners on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioners. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioners may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law.

In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?”

ANALYSIS:

The allegations against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.3 and 4, as seen from the record is that the Petitioners had indulged in dealing with 147 Kgs of ganja along with other Accused. The role of the Petitioners have come into light when Accused No.2 gave confession. Accused No.6 has already been enlarged on bail by learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 6279 of 2025, dated 03.07.2025. No remand extension Petition was filed. The Petitioners were arrested on 31.03.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 177 days. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. They are permanent residents of Dukkavanipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Material portion of the investigation in so far as the role of the Petitioners is concerned is completed. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Scope of Petitioners either to threaten the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. Period for custodial interrogation was also completed.

CONCLUSION:

Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, their alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions:

i. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Saluru.

ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.

iii. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

v. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 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 Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 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 or to any police officer.

vii. The Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.