IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4290 OF 2025 Between: Pullepu Jayaramu (@) Jayaram Nayudu, S/o.Sathibabu, Hindu, Age 20 years. D.No.3-25/a, Rajamahendravaram(R). Narasapuram Korukonda Mandal, ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through S.H.O, Korukonda P.S., East Godavari District. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS and 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent Korukonda P.S, E.G District, in Cr.No.47/2025. / The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.V.N.V.Teja, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following 1 4 APHC010201122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] n THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4290/2025 Between: Pullepu Jayaramu (@) Jayaram Nayudu, AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 .VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik BNSS’), has been filed by the 1. Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short petitioner/A.2, seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.47/2025 of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District. The above crime was registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. This case pertains to the illegal possession and transportation of a narcotic substance, gsnja, that occurred on 10.03.2025 at 14.00 hours near 3. 2 .k Chakravarthi Layout, Jambupattanam Village, Korukonda Mandal. The incident was reported the same day at 16:30 hours. A.1 and A.4 were apprehended in the act by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Korukonda Police Station. Approximately 1.450 kilograms of ganja, valued at f 10,000, along with two mobile phones, ?300 in cash, and two motorcycles, were seized from their possession in the presence of mediators. According to the statements of A.1 and A.4, the ganja was originally procured by A.2, who sold it to A.3: A.3 then sold it to A. 1. A. 1 was in the process of selling it to A.4 at the time of arrest. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the police allegedly seized 1.450 kg of ganja, two cell phones, ?300 in cash, and two motorcycles from A1 and A4 under a mediator report, and that the Petitioner has no connection with the offence or the co-accused. It is contended that the allegations against the Petitioner are baseless, with no material evidence apart from an alleged confession. The Petitioner previously filed CrI.M.P. No. 315 of 2025 before the Special Sessions Judge for NDPS cases, Rajamahendravaram, which was dismissed on 11.04.2025. He is a permanent resident of Narasapuram, Korukonda Mandal, and an engineering student at GIET College, Rajamahendravaram. The Petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, appear when required, furnish sureties, and comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail, citing that the investigation is still ongoing. 5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the counter. 6. In Mahipal .V Rajesh\ the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court, while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to 7. (2020) 2 see 118 3 (L believe that the accused has committed the crime. It is settled law that when granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the case's merits has not to be undertaken. That did not mean that whilst granting bail, some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated. It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the accusation's nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. If there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the ordinary course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 8. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives. 9. The law presumes an accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Prosecution's case is that, on credible information, A.1 and A.4 were caught red-handed while they had 1.450 kgs of Ganja. As per the confession statements of A.1 and A.4, the ganja was originally procured by A.2, who sold it to A.3, and A.3 subsequently sold it to A.1; A.1 was in the process of selling it to A.4 at the time of arrest. Based on the confession 11. 4 statements of A.1 and A.4, the crime was registered against the petitioner and others. Notably, no contraband has been found in the possession of petitioner/A.2. In fact, apart from the confessional statements independent material has been collected to establish the involvement in committing the offence. , no other petitioner's 12. The petitioner contends that there has been no compliance with sub section (3) of 52A of the NDPS Act. In light of this submission, I have perused the material placed on record. The mediators report indicates that the samples were drawn in the presence of mediators, but not in the presence of the Magistrate. 13. In Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 16. Sub-section (3) of Sec.52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is In law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above includinggrant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with subsections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. 9. Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court In the case of Union of India v. Mohanlal & Ani^. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband. 10. Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly seizure ; we ^ 2023 Law Suit(SC) 859 (2016) 3 see 379 5 set aside the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concerned and quash his cori'viction and sentence. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed. ” As seen from the record, there is no indication of a likelihood that the petitioner would abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation agency. The object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventative. No previous criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner. 14. 15. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner are subjected to the trial’s outcome. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the prosecution shows that the accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, as most of the witnesses were official witnesses and this Court believes that even if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that he will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioner has a permanent abode. It is not the Prosecution's case that the Petitioner would flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. 16. Upon careful review of the available material, and considering that the quantity of seized ganja is non-commercial quantity and there is no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.2 under certain conditions: (i) Petitioner/A.2 is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District, within two (2) weeks from today and upon his surrender, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees 17. 1 6 Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer once in a week i.e., on every Sunday, between 10.00 AM to 05.00 PM for a period of three (3) months. (iii)The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. Furthermore, he is prohibited from making any direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer. (iv)lf the Petitioner fails to cooperate with the Investigation agency, the Prosecution can make an appropriate application to cancel his bail. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. 18. 19. The Criminal Petition is allowed, accordingly. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K. KASIRAO ACHARI ASSIST/^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER SE To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. The Station House Officer, Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District. One CC to Sri V.V.N.V.Teja, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Amaravati.[OUT] One spare copy. 2. 3. 4. High Court of A.P. 5. HIGH COURT TMR.J DATED:08/05/2025 ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.4290 of 2025 ALLOWED