AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2026 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences 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’).
Mr.Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits 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 continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependants. He is a law-abiding citizen. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody beyond the statutory period of 180 days. The petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 189 days.
Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, 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 of his absconding, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, he 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, this is the second bail application. This Court vide order dated 16.06.2026 in Crl.P.No.4605 of 2026 dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 189 days. He was arrested on the spot while he was in possession of 2.00 kgs of hashish oil, which is a commercial quantity. There are four similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, vide Crime Nos.02 of 2024, 81 of 2022, 14 of 2025 and 122 of 2023. No petition seeking extension of the period of remand beyond 180 days was filed before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is a permanent resident of East Godavari District and he has got fixed abode. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, the interests of justice would be sub-served.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with some stringent conditions.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.
The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.
The Petitioner/Accused No.1 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.