High CourtsSingle Bench

Sobha Ramesh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 June 2025 · Citation: (2025) 06 AP CK 0140

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.C.D. Sekhar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480, 483 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No: 2362 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 573 words

T.C.D. Sekhar, J

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.6 on bail in Cr.No.99 of 2024 on the file of CheedikadaPolice Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.6 herein for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 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 on 01.08.2024, the Sub-Inspector of Police, CheedikadaPolice Station, Anakapalli District, on receiving information about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja and rushed to the scene of offence by securing the presence of mediators and apprehended A1to A4 and found 150 Kgs of Ganja in their possession. The contraband was seized under cover of a mediators report and they were arrested and sent to judicial custody and basing on confessional statement of other accused, petitioner was arrayed as A-6 and arrested on 16.12.2024 and sent to judicial custody.

3.

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

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the crime; petitioner is the sole breadwinner; petitionerwould abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitionerare enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition.

6.

As seen from the record, the petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 181 days. Thepetitioner is resident of RangilisingiVillage, MunchingiputMandal, AlluriSitharama Raju District. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail with stringent conditions, he would not flee away from the clutches of the law, and interest of the justice would be served.

7.

Keeping in view of the period of detention undergone by the petitioner in judicial custody for more than 180 days, the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions.

8.

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

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only)with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to appear before theCheedikadaPolice Station, AnakapalliDistrict, on every 2nd Saturday and 4th Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail.

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