-I----=` IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAG _-.i CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5938 OF 2025 Between.I --------I I'`+I `+€'uU ur £U£O «>,`t*`:,*<,¥jii GoIIen Seetharam @ Anll, S/o KrI|Shna Rao Aged 23 Years, R/o sakiputtu village, Badimela post paderu MandaI, AIlurI' Seeta Ramaraju DI'StrI'Ct. ...Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep by Its publlc prosecutor H['gh court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravatl Through the statIOn House officer cheedikada Police statI'On, Anakapalli District ...Respondent/complaI-nanE petjtjon under sectI'OnS 480 & 483 of BNSS, prayI-ng that in the circumstances stated I-n the memorandum of grounds filed in suppolt of the crlmlnal petlt,On, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petltioner/Accused No 6 on ba" ln crlme No 146 of 2023 on the fIIe of the cheedikada police Station, Anakapam District in the interest ofjustl-ce. The petI'tjOn COml-ng on for hearing, upon perusing the petjtjon and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI SHAIK JAHANGEER BASHA Advocate for the petitioner,I and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the foIIowI-ng lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5938/2025 Betwee n : Golleri Seetharam @ Anil AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK JAHANGEER BA-SHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: [3521] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED .HRESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSJ), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in Cr.No.146 of 2023 of Cheedikada Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/accused No.6 herein for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 r/w 8 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropI'C Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity fthe NDPS Act"). <...i ~ '` . a:I-life-.- +/ H 2. The case of the prosecutiO-h iS that in the year2023, the petitioner/accused No.6 supplied 24 kgs of Ganja to the accused Nos.1 to 5, who were Caught red handed while they were found in possession of 24 kgs Ganja. Basing on the alleged confession of the other accused, the Petitioner/accused No.6 is implicated in this case. subsequently, the petitioner/accused No.6 was arrested on 12.04.2025 and was remanded to the judicial custody. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. Sri Shaik Jahangeer Basha, learned counsel for the Petitioner Submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; petitioner is innocent; petitioner was falsely implicated; he would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. On the other hand, Sri NeelotphaI Ganji, learned Assistant Public prosecutor,, argued that the charge sheet has already been filed and he urged tO dismiss the bail petition. 6. Honlble Supreme Court -ln Simarariit Singh vs. State of Punifabl at paragraph No.16 observed as under: 16. Sub-section (3) of Sect-IOn 52-A requires that the Mag-lstrate shall. as s.oof a.s ma,y P_e_l allow th'e appli6ation. This implies t'hat no sooner the Se_iZure .-IS..effeCteq, anqrE!PP contraband I forwarded to the' officer-in-charge of the police Pta.tiop _ Or. fhe 9ffi?Pr -ofinb6wered, the officer concerned is in law dut-y-bound tO aPP_roach the Magis!r€_te_ _f?_I_tP_e_ -pu;p-oses a;entioned above including grant of 'permissiOn tO d_raw rePre,Sentati_VleL,:Srr:P!e_sJ li;-lki-; -p-resinii,--vi-h-ICh Samples Wiifl then be',enlisted and the POrrectneSS Of I,h_I__I.:ist_o_fI -:a-in-pigs-:6 Jriw-ri--66rfified 'by the Magistrate. In other wo_res, th? .Pro??Ssr _off_~dLr_ay!nalg+LOf^ -i:i:i;I-its -ria: i-o--i-e-i; ih6 -pr;s6nce art:d under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 12023 Lawsuit(SC) 859 e`.=J I.I \~` ~_f` 17. The question of drawing Of SarfiPleS at the time Of Seizure Which, more Often than not, takes place in the absence Of the Magistrate does not in the eb_ove_ scheme _of things arise. This is so especially when according to Sect-IOn 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-sections (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 prov-lsion in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the ti_me of se_izure._ That is perhaps why none of the Slat_es claim to be tpkin_g sam.pips at the time c,I seizure." 9. Hence, the act Of PVV-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure -IS not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of MohanlaI1.. This cieates 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, we set aside the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concernecl and quash his conviction and ` sentence. . ll. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner,Was arrested On 12.04.2025, ever since he has been in the judicial custody and also accused Nos.1 and 2 were alreadyenlargedon bail vide orders dated 09.01.2024 and 02.01.2024 in crI.P.Nos.9908 and 9709 of 2023 respectively, 8. In view of the nature Of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the complaint, the specific role played by the petitioner, and the period of detention underg,one by him in judicial custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with strict conditions. 9. [n the result, the criminal Petition iS allowed With the following conditions: i) The petI-tiOner/accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each {o the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicja[ First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. ii) The petitioner/accused No,6 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Cheedikada Police Station, AnakapaIIi Dist+ict, j> on saturday~ once I'n two weeks ln between 10.loo am and o5'00 pm., tm the conclusion of the Trial. I) The petJt,Oner/accused No.6 shall not dlrectly or J'ndl'rectly Influence or threaten or meet the w,-tnesses lncludI'ng the de- facto complal|nant. / •ASS/ //TRUE COPY// S TEAR To, --- I_'_,---I.:+y---.i,,=,J,I I-I Jr---.-..I-.. --------__ 1 The AddltIOnal JudlcJaI FIrSt Class MagIS{rate, Chodavaram, VI'Sakhapatnam Dl'strjct 2. The superlntendent, Dlstrlct Jall, VI'Sakhapatnam, vI-Sakhapatnam DjstrI'Ct 3 The statIOn House offlcer, cheedlkada poIICe Statlon, Anakapallir D,-strict 4 One cc to SRI SHAIK JAHANGEER BASHA Advocate [opuc] 5 Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Hl|gh court of Andhra pradesh [OUTJ 6. one spare copy PSR ¢, DR.YLR,J DATED : 25/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.5938 of 2025 ALLOWED