APHC010375972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8038/2025 Between: 1. BELLAM PREETHAN AKASH, S/O. BELLAM VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-311/1, RAMAIAH NAGAR, SOUTH BYPASS ROAD, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through Krishnagiri P.S, Kumool District High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner-accused No. 2 in crime No. 64 of 2025 of Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15-07-2025 at 4 p.m. near Tea Stall, situated in front of Manjeera Hotel at Amakathadu Toll Plaza, accused No. 1 was arrested while he was found in possession of 10 Grams of Cocaine. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No. 1 was transporting the said contraband on the instructions of the petitioner-accused No. 2 by buying the same from accused No. 3. 3. Mr. Shaik Mohammed Ismail, 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. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, submitting 3 that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are disputes between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, accused No. 2 was falsely implicated in this case and there are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner-accused No. 2. Learned counsel further submits that in Sahil Firoz Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra1, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner therein and therefore urged to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioner herein. 7. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 2 is that he had allegedly indulged in dealing with 10 Grams of Cocaine, of course it is not a commercial quantity. As seen from the record, on the confession given by accused No. 1, the petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 2 in this case. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 15-07-2025. What are the disputes pending in between the Petitioner and his brother/Accused No.1 have not been specifically mentioned, to believe the version of the Petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahil 1 Criminal Appeal No. 4905 of 2024 dated 2911-2024 4 Firoz Shaikh supra granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner therein on the ground that the petitioner is a woman and she is at the impressionable age of 18 years and there was no allegation of recovery of contraband from her. Whereas in this case, the petitioner is a male, aged about 32 years. He was indulged in dealing with 10 Grams of Cocaine. There are specific allegations against the petitioner. Custodial interrogation is required to be conducted if the petitioner-accused No. 2 is nabbed by the investigating officer to know the source of cocaine and who are involved in this case and who financed the cocaine originally. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana 2 , in general, anticipatory bail is not maintainable against the accused who is involved in NDPS cases. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No. 2 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 8. Indeed, grant of pre-arrest bail is neither a license for commission of a heinous offence nor a shield for the persons who have committed grave offence, as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ Date: 28-08-2025, DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. JSK 2 Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 9540 of 2025 dated 07-07-2025 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8038 OF 2025 Date: 28-08-2025 JSK