Adagari Pottinaidu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

Subba Reddy Satti, J

Petitioner herein, who is Accused No.6 in Crime No.82 of 2021 of Rolugunta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, filed this Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2021, at about 02.00 p.m., on credible information received by the Rolugunta Police Station, Sub-Inspector of Police, along with staff and mediators reached the scene of offence i.e. Peddapeta Junction, which is between Narsipatnam to Chintapalli Road, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. When they were searching the vehicles that are passing through the junction, they found one auto with four persons and one Yamaha motor cycle with two persons. When they stopped those vehicles, they tried flee away. However, raid party apprehended five persons and pillion rider of the motor cycle fled away. The person who escaped is A6 and the petitioner herein. On searching the vehicles, they found 8 bags with 20 kgs of ganja each and total ganja that was found is 160 kgs. Then the above crime was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner surrendered before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge – Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, on 01.04.2022 and since then he is languishing in jail. He also would submit that though quantity involved in the present crime is 160 kgs., the entire quantity was seized from A1 and A5 and nothing was seized from the petitioner. Further, A1 to A5 and A7, were already enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal M.P.No.2312 of 2021 vide order dated 08.12.2021 and Criminal M.P.No.2037 of 2022 vide order dated 14.06.2022, respectively. Hence, he prayed the Court to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner surrendered before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge – Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, on 01.04.2022 whereas other accused were apprehended on 27.05.2021. The petitioner has absconded for nearly 10 months and, therefore, opposed the petition and sought to dismiss the same.

I have perused the entire record and given anxious consideration to the material therein and to the contentions of the both the counsel.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no contraband was found to be in possession of the petitioner and nothing was seized from his possession. The case of the prosecution, as can be seen from the Mediators’ Report, is that the petitioner ran away and on the basis of the confession of A1 to A5, the petitioner was arrayed as A6. It is only on that basis, the petitioner was implicated in this case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, as nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner and A1 to A5 and A7, were already enlarged on bail, the petitioner is entitled for regular bail.

Accordingly, regular bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions :

(i) The petitioner shall execute self bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station, Vizianagaram District, daily between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the territory of Rolugunta without intimating the SHO concerned;

(iv) The petitioner shall not go beyond the Region of Rolugunta, without the permission of the concerned SHO/or the learned Trial Court after commencement of trial;

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant or any other witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt at influencing the witnesses;

(vi) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile phone/landline number and residential address as well as that of their sureties to the I.O./SHO concerned and he shall keep his mobile/landline phone operational at all times during this period and in the event of any change of the same, will immediately inform the same to the I.O./S.H.O. and,

(vii) The petitioner shall drop a pin location on Goolgle Maps so that the location of the petitioner is available to the Investigation Officer.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the finding in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the regular bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.