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.6 on bail in Crime No.9 of 2026 of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’).
Mr.Mruthyumjayudu Pilli, 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. He is law-abiding citizen. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. 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 Rohith, 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 apprehended on 15.07.2026. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 91 days. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused, indulged in dealing with 7.130 Kgs. of ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were arrested and subsequently released on bail. There are altogether eleven accused in this case. So far, six witnesses are examined. Material portion of the investigation with regard to the alleged role of the petitioner is completed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Pothavaram Village of Chilakaluripet Mandal. He has got fixed abode.
However, there are eleven adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, out of which five are similar in nature. Be that as it may, the petitioner is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail. Further, pendency of the adverse antecedents are not being mentioned by the petitioner in the petition.
In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.2, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.
The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail with certain conditions.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following conditions:
The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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.6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. In the event of any such offence being reported, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of this bail order.
The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
The Petitioner/Accused No.6 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.
The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.