- ORDER : Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2025, at about 6:30 A.M., on the Devarapalli to Tallada NH-516 Highway, near the Agriculture Market Committee check post, Accused Nos.1 to 5 were transporting ganja illegally for wrongful gain. Accused Nos.1 to 7 had hatched a common plan to procure and transport the ganja to Telangana State and sell it at a higher price. Accused No.2 arranged the ganja, while Accused Nos.1 to 5 transported it as per the instructions of Accused Nos.6 and 7. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were arrested, and 189 packets of ganja contained in 12 bags, weighing 394.795 Kgs, along with crime vehicles i.e., Maruti Swift Dzire car and Tata Intra truck were seized under the cover of a mediators’ report. 3. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends 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 incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 25.04.2025, while the present case was registered showing him as one of the accused on 29.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order of the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025, wherein at Paragraph Nos.8.12 and 8.13, the learned Trial Court observed that Accused No.4 was apprehended one day prior to the registration of the crime. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail on 31.07.2025, and the present petitioner is also standing on the same footing on the principle of parity. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail on 31.07.2025, and the present petitioner is also standing on the same footing on the principle of parity. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, 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. It is further submitted that there is a clear admission by the petitioner in the mediators’ report that he acted as a driver for transporting the commercial quantity of ganja in his own vehicle, and therefore the accusation is well founded. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he acted as the driver of the Swift Dzire car in which 394.795 Kgs of ganja was allegedly transported at the behest of the other accused. Indubitably, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail by the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, vide order dated 31.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.409 of 2025 in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station. It is important and relevant to extract the findings of the learned Trial Court in its order at Paragraph Nos.8.12 and 8.13, which are extracted under: 8.12. Most compellingly, the CCTV footage from the Indane Gas Godown at Smarlakota provides concrete visual evidence that corroborates the petitioners assertion regarding Accused No.4 apprehension before the alleged incident. This documentary evidence substantially undermines the prosecution’s timeline of events and raises legitimate questions about the case’s foundational facts. - 8.13. After careful examination of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners may not be guilty of the alleged offences under the Act. The available evidence, when viewed in its totality, presents sufficient doubt about the petitioners’ involvement to meet the threshold under Section 37. - 8.13. After careful examination of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners may not be guilty of the alleged offences under the Act. The available evidence, when viewed in its totality, presents sufficient doubt about the petitioners’ involvement to meet the threshold under Section 37. Moreover, although in the CD it was alleged that the petitioners were involved in similar offences, the prosecution’s memo filed on 30.07.2025 reveals that Accuse No.4 has no prior criminal record. While Accused No.3 reportedly involved in other cases, none of them relate to offences under the Act. Similarly, there is no tangible evidence to suggest that the petitioners are likely to commit similar offences if released on bail. 7. On careful perusal of the above observations, it is clear that Accused No.4 was apprehended one day prior to the alleged occurrence. He was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer on 28.04.2025, as seen from the CCTV footage obtained from the Indane Gas godown at Samarlakota. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police also filed a counter in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the learned Trial Court, wherein a reference was made to the said CCTV footage regarding the apprehension of Accused No.4 one day prior to the alleged incident. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.04.2025, while the case was registered against him on 29.04.2025 for the alleged transportation of 394.795 Kgs of ganja. The genuineness of the prosecution case was expressly doubted by the learned Trial Court while granting bail to Accused Nos.3 and 4. The case of the present petitioner also stands on the similar footing. The petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2025 as per the remand report, where as it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was apprehended on 25.04.2025. - 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 124 days. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the confession of Accused No.5 before the police. However, such confession is not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. - 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 124 days. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the confession of Accused No.5 before the police. However, such confession is not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. Afortiori, the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC Online SC 1157 , at Para No.53 (iv) it is held as under: 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused.” 10. While considering the bail application for grant of bail, the sole confession of the accused may not be relied upon. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Accused No.1 was also enlarged on bail by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, vide order dated 29.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.487 of 2025. The Swift Dzire car is not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of his brother, who is a constable. - 11. The Swift Dzire car is not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of his brother, who is a constable. - 11. Considering the entire gamut of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and in view of the fact that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were enlarged on bail with specific observations of the learned Trial Court, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with some stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Junior Division), Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.5 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. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.5 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 or to any police officer. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.