zJ>,7A + lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PE"TION NO: 7413 OF 2025 Betwee n : Regula Vinod @ Pedda Ginga @ Prudvi, S/o.Chinna, Age 28 years, Hindu, R/o.Siddartha Nagar] Rajamahendravaram, Now at Wambay Apartments, Torredu village, Rajanagaram Mandal. ...Petitioners/Accused No.6 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Ill Town L & O PS, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant him bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit directing his enlargement in Cr'lme No. 88 of-2025 of Ill Town L & O Police station, Rajamahendravaram. The petition on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearl-ng the arguments of SRI DUGGIRALA SUBASH Advocate for the Pe±i{ioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: / +~t - / APHCO10358742025 E.gill IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7413/2025 [3521] Between : Regula Vinod Alias Pedda Ginga AIias--Prudvi, .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petit-]oner/accused: . 1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH ."RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complain.ant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevity lthe Cr.P.C.I) Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity £the BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.88 of 2025 of lll Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for short gthe NDPS ActJ). `.`-- _ 2. The case of the prosecution, l'n a.nutshell, is that on 25.02.2025 at about 10.30 a.m., on credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sl of Police, along with staff and mediators, rushed to Quarry Pits, Simhachala Nagar of Rajamahendravaram and callght hold of five persons. Then the police apprehended them and on enquiry, they disclosed their identity particulars and police found 20.350 kgs of ganja in their possession. The contraband, along with other material, was seized under the cover of mediators report and the accusecI Nos.1 to 5 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. They also disclosed about the involvement of other accused l'.e., A6 to A9. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and -the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Sri Duggirala Subash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that based on the confession statements of Al to A5, the petitioner/A6 was implicated in this case and was arrested on 06.03.2025. Since then, he has been in judicial custody. The FIR was lodged on 25.02.2025. The learned Single Judge of this Court granted bail to accused Nos.7 and 9 in Criminal Petition No.6292 of 2025, dated 09.07.2025. 5. Per confra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail of---- ---* ----,-:-Fn z,_.ts i-y , :€`-,`L /3j-|fji-S,if#y`S;fff3fffy petition. 6. The allegations leveled against the petitioner/A6, and A7 & A9 are one and the same. The petitioner was not found in possession of the alleged 20.350 kgs of ganja, although it constitutes a commercial quantity of contraband. The confessions of co-accused cannot be relied upon while considering the gravity of the case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. In paragraph Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv), it is held as follows: --27. To some extent, the petitionerscould be said to have made out a PriT.a.fa?ie Case Of POIitical bias or mala tides but that by itself is not suffi.ci?n_i to grant anticipatory ba-lil overlooking the othofr prima facie materials on record. Political yendetta or bias if any is -one of the r3.Ievant cpnsiPeret.io_ns while| cbr],sidering the plea of -ant-ICiPatOry bail. The ppurfs s_houlq kee_p orie-thing 'in mind, more particrilarly,-while cop_3_ide_ring the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival POIit.i_caI_ p9rtieS are at War Which---inay ultimately lead to litiga{ions, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be sori]e element of POIiti?a.I. b_fas_ or__vendetta involved~``'in the same. However, political vendptta .by itself is not sufficient for'the grant of anticipatory trail. The ?ourts should not just look into. the-..aspect of political ve-ndetta and igpore the other mater-Ials on record` constituting -a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only wlle.n the court is convinced more than prima_ fecie that the allegation-s a;e frivolous and baseless, that the coirrt may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the Purpose Of CPnSiC!ering the plea pf anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the ?ptire case that the court may lofcjk into should be attributed to-POI-ItiCal bias or vendetta. 45. . Ho.w9Ver! the aforesaid Observations Cannot be Singled out and construed devoid of its context.`while it is permissible forihe courts to examine the statements recorded' un-der section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of ascertaining whet,h`er a prima-facie case has been made out against__the a?cused and the natiure or gravity of the allegations, the same applies only insofar as sL;-Ch POIice statements are off witnesses and not accLISed berSOnS. 4.6. . . Bpth lpdresh Kumar (supra)land Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail. 47. This -IS because a Statementdf =r; accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C stands bn a different footind from a police statement of any ordinary witness. Statements of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by virtue of ordina`rily being in the form of either an admission or a confession cannot be.:looked into qua another co- accused, as to say otherwise would be to ignore-the substantive provisions of Section(s) 17, 21, 25 add 26 of the Evidence Act and the well settled cannot,s of law of evidenc`e..LHowever, the aforesaid does not apply, where the statement of an.ac6irsed under section 161 of the cr.p:c is exculpatory in nature, which wie shall discuss later. 50. Even where the police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is neither.an admission nor a confession, i.e., it is exculpatory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements c=n b6 looked into by the courts only for the limited purpose of culling out the stance of the accused persoh qua the:aIIegati-onS. An exculpat6ry police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time implicates another Co: accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such statement is not hit by the safeguards and rigours that apply -In respect Of inCulpatbry statements in the form of an admissions or 'confessions uncier `Iire Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudenc& is, tha`t a statement of one accused person cannot be u-sed 'against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid general principle -IS inCulPatOry confessions, where the accused person in his confessional statement not only admits his own guilt but also implicates another co-accused. The rationale behind this limited exception as explained in Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an adm®ISSiOn by an accused Person Of his own guilt affords some sort of credibility or sanction in support of the truth of his confession against others as-well as himself. An exculpatory statement is an affront to the aforesaid principle. Thus, an exculpatory statement of an accused person under sectioh 161 of the Cr.P.+'C. can only be looked into for the -limited purpose of either culling out the stance-of the accused person qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory` statement insofar as it implicates another co-accused person can in no manner be relied upon by the courts as against such co-accused as such statements by their nature cannot be tested by cross-examination if such accused person declines to be a witness in the trial in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C., and because such exculpatory statement has no credibility. 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 stateirient of art 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. .I _' I ±n ..iz,- ln 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 P*::_d _On, Such, Stafem?nt.S .either at the stage of bail or during tr-Ial. S_ilnc_p _slPch ^c_onf,eSSiO±a.I statem_ents are rendiired.inadmissible bi virt-ue of_Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision bf section 30 wiould -b-e of. flo avail, and `nO reliance can b-e placed on such confessiori=I statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused.'' I I 7. The Hon'bleApex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan Reddysapra, held lhata confessl|onal statement of co-accused per se inadmissible and no relevance whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through bail inasmuch as such confession statements are rendered by virtue of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short fthe Act').The provision of Section 30 of {the ActJ would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such a statement as a cause of action to implicate another co-accused. Further, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were found in possession of 21.350 kgs of ganja. The majority of the investigation has been completed. The petitioner'is a Permanent resI-dent Of Rajamahendravaram,1 and there is no possibility of hl'm fleeing from the clutches of the law. All the witnesses are official witnesses, and there is no likelihood of the petitioner threatening them, tamperI'ng With the evidence, Or hampering the Ongoing investigation. 8. ConsI'dering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged role placed by the petitioner, the nature of allegations leveled against him and the fact that A7 and A9 were already enlarged on bail, this court is incII-ned tO enlarge the petitI'Oner herein On bail. I - I.- / =:EEFT -_ - -- \ 9. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following stringem conditI-OnS: i. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subJ'eCt to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned v AddI'tiOnaI Judicial Filrst I class MagI'Strate, Rajamahendravaram. I'i. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall appear before the station House Officer, Ill Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, on every saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, tI-II cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial cou=rf. ilf. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the learned v Additional Judicial First class Magilstrate, Rajamahendravaram. I'V. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the investI'gating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. €= i I -;, It- vi. The petitioner/Accused No.6 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. SD/-M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT faGIST SECTION OFFl //TRUE COPY// For To] 1. The Station House Officer, III Town L & O PS, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District. 2. The Vth Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. 4. One CC to SRl. DUGGIRALA SUBASH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 6. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 23/07/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7413 of 2025 ALLOWED i=iiii± T fuxpeyffft¢:flJINN#EL a e'Ff I \ luL \\\\