Padalam Khara Alias Indrajit Alias Indu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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.3 on bail in Crime No.279 of 2024 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

Mr.Boosara V.N.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he 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. 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.

Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, 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 was arrested on 27.05.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 72 days. The role of the petitioner has come to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, to the effect that the petitioner also indulged in dealing with 4.05 kgs of ganja. The seized contraband is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Odisha State. He has got fixed abode. No application seeking the custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been filed. The petitioner has already completed the statutory period of 60 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is one adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ^{11.(2020) 11 SCC 648} , at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail.

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