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.2 on bail in Crime No.354 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(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. He is a law-abiding citizen and the sole breadwinner of his family. He has not committed any offence. 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, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioner are well-founded. Hence, he prayed that the Criminal 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 filed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in Crl.P.No.2912 of 2026, vide order dated 22.04.2026, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 254 days. This Court had granted bail to Accused No.3 on medical grounds. The charge sheet has been filed well within the period of 180 days. There are eight adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner; however, all of them are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. There are altogether six bags of ganja, weighing approximately 21.7 kilograms in total, which were found in the possession of all the accused, including the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, and the period of his incarceration, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravarm.
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.
The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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.