Bikki Narendra Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/6896/2025 · 2025-07-22
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23371 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23371 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010328362025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6896/2025 Between:
BIKKI NARENDRA BABU, S/O KUMAR, AGED AROUND 39 YEARS, SCOTSSPINE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, Governorpet P.S., Commissionerate Vijayawada
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
KAVATI NARESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.1 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.52 of 2025 of Governorpet Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, registered for the alleged 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 12.06.2025, on receipt of credible information from the superiors of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Governorpet Police Station, along with staff, mediators, and a photographer proceeded to Mud Road, near Rivas Canal, behind Old GGH, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada. Upon arrival, some suspects fled, but five were apprehended and interrogated in the presence of mediators.They voluntarily confessed that they were addicted to cigarettes, alcohol, and ganja. They revealed that they had gone to Dambriguda, purchased 21 kgs of ganja from one Bhimu for consumption and resale, and returned to Vijayawada. While sharing the ganja behind Old GGH, police apprehended them. Some others,
3
including A-1, A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9, are absconding. Hence, the case was registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1. 3. Sri K.Naresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; the petitioner was not there at the scene of the alleged offence; he is innocent, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner was on an earlier occasion indulged in similar kinds of three (03) offences vide Crime Nos. 64 of 2021, 382 of 2019, and 207 of 2023 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, and it is urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, based on the confession statements of Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5, the petitioner was figured as Accused No.1 in this case. The call details on record also indicate communication
4
between the petitioner and the other accused. It is reported that there are three (03) antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner/Accused No.1. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9540 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025 in the case of Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana, in general Anticipatory Bail is not maintainable against the accused, who is involved in NDPS cases. 7. Considering the gravity and nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner, his alleged role in this case and the three (03) adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.07.2025 RSI
5
174 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6896 of 2025
Date: 23.07.2025
RSI