* IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA^TIffi^ ■:K«i K V,rf- THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7468 OF 2025 / S a »■ Y f f- I .'■.t i 1 •) V >; ♦a. 7 h ■'Y' t f J-'CS •4 Ng. r ¥• < ■a Between: Kusangi Mathya Kondababu @Janu, S/o Mallanna, Age 34 years, R/o Thokagaruvul Village, Rapalli Post, Maddigaruvu, ASR District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Maharanipeta Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023, 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 release him on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 121/2023 of Maharanipeta Police Station. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following APHC010360352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7468/2025 Between: KUSANGI MATHYA KONDABABU ALIAS JANU, S/0 MALLANNA, AGE 34 YEARS. R/0 THOKAGARUVUL VILLAGE, RAPALLI POST, MADDIGARUVU, ASR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (Maharanipeta Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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 ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7468 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.121 of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPSAct’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2023 at about 12:30 hours, on receipt of credible information regarding the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maharanipeta Police Station, along with his staff, secured the presence of mediators, rushed to Sea Pearl Beach Road, Maharanipeta, and conducted a raid. The Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended Accused No.1 and found in his possession 1.100 kg of liquid ganja, which was purchased by his friend. Accused No.2, for selling at high rates for wrongful gain. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody, the contraband was seized under a cover of mediators’ report, and he was arrested. Mr. Arrabolu Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration 3. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7468 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitting that the investigation is completed, charge sheet also filed in this Case, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 17.05.2025 onwards. Nearly for the past 82 days, he has been in judicial custody. Accused No.1 was granted bail by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was shown as an accused in this case based on the confession of 6. Accused No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner/Accused No.2 is a cultivator of ganja. The contraband involved in this case is 1.100 Kg of liquid ganja. Of course, 1.100 Kg of liquid ganja is a commercial quantity. In view of the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and it takes indefinite time for the learned Trial Court to take up the matter for trial, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody till such time would not serve any justice. If certain conditions 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7468 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 are imposed on the petitioner while enlarging him on bail, the ends of justice would be met. 7. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh^ at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: 27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prima facie case as alleged by the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prima facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. 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 statement of an 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. In 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 placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused." 53. 8. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioner/Accused No.2 in judicial custody for the past 82 days, the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role ’'2025 see Online Se 1157 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7468 of 2025 Dated 07.08.2025 played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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 No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in IV. commission of any offence in future. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate with the V. investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly. VI. make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7468 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 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 No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SDI- G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintendent, Visakhapatnam Central Jail, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC to Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 7. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE:07/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7468 of 2025 ALLOWED n o I C-> m 03 tS> ★