Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1074 (AP)

Pukkella Karuna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-09-24

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. 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 on bail in Crime No.306 of 2025 on the file of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered against the petitioner/Accused herein for the offence 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’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 19.08.2025 on receipt of information regarding ganja transportation, the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators rushed to at D.No.5022, Dibbadapalem, Chepaluppada, Visakhapantam and found the accused in possession of 1.5 kgs of ganja. Then the Inspector of Police seized the ganja and arrested the accused. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Ms. Durga Sreedevi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 35 days. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 35 days. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 6. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he is indulged in possession of 1.5 kgs of ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 19.08.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 35 days. The petitioner is permanent resident of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner has got fixed abode. So far four witnesses are examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the question of petitioner threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. The petitioner is permanent resident of Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner has got fixed abode. So far four witnesses are examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the question of petitioner threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the XV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused 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 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused 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. vii. The petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.