Shesharao Mane, S/O. Bhagwat Mane vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Y. Lakshmana Rao, J

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ 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 Cr.No.24 of 2025 of Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2025, on receipt of credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to the Inner Ring Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, and conducted vehicle checking. During the check, the police noticed one male person driving an Ashok Leyland vehicle, who, on seeing the police, suddenly stopped the vehicle and attempted to escape. The police apprehended the accused and, upon checking the said vehicle, found 78.00 Kgs of ganja, which was seized under the cover of the mediators’ report, and the accused was arrested.

Sri G.Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and 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. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, 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. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

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

As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.4 was allegedly involved in dealing with 78.00 Kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 182 days. On an earlier occasion, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that a remand extension petition had been filed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prosecution filed a remand extension petition, i.e., CFSR No.3947 of 2025, it was returned by the learned Trial Court on 21.08.2025, and thereafter the petition was not represented before the learned Trial Court. As of now, no remand extension petition is pending before the learned Trial Court. In this case, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are yet to be arrested. However, the petitioner has completed the statutory period of 180 days. The petitioner/Accused No.4 is a resident of Koll, Kumalwald, Sonegaon, Osmanabad, Maharashtra, and is a driver. He was allegedly driving the vehicle in which the contraband was transported. The material portion of the investigation has been completed. Hence, the question of the petitioner influencing or threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation may not arise.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner/Accused No.4 and report was filed before the learned Court below by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned seeking for extension period of judicial custody of the petitioner, but it was returned, and it was resubmitted.

Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioner/Accused No.4 has an indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period.

Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner/Accused No.4 in judicial custody for the past 182 days, the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions:

i. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

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

iii. The petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the District 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 in future.

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 or to any police officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.