/ -Z IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE +'`f\J : PRESENT.- `.~T:., THE HONOURABLE DR JuSTICE Y| LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMIN`AL PETITION NO.I 7709 OF 2025 Between : samaleti Shl'va, S/o Rajayya, Aged abut 20 years, C/SC-Madiga, Yerrambally village, Bhongiri Mandal, yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State. (A-4) ...PetitI'Oner/AccusecE AND state ofAndhra pradesh, Represented by its pubII'C Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravathlo Through, station House officer, chinturu police Station, chinturu, AIluri Sitarama Raju District. ...Respondent/complainant petition under sections 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that Ion the circumstances stated I'n the memorandum of grounds fl-led in support of the criminal petitl'on, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order by enlarging the petitioner on ba" in cr.No.97 of 2024 of Ch[-nturu p.s., AIIurj' Sitaramaraju Distr['ct, jn the interests of justice. +` I--/ The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the pet[-tjon and the4 memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. ASTONISH LAWS Advocate for the petitioner, and ofE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the court made the followI'ng _i ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 'of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- - accused No. 4 on bail in crime No. 97 of 2024 of Chintoor Police Station, AIluri Sitharama RaJ'u District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 20-12-2024 at about 5 p.m., opposite to Chinturu Police Station, Chinturu Village and Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chinturu Police Station, along with his staff and mediators apprehended accused No. 3 while he and accused Nos. 4 and 5 were transporting 40 K.Gs. of GanJ'a. lt iS the further Case Of Prosecution that accused Nos. 3 to 5 fetched Ganja from accused No. 1 and they were transporting the same at the instance of accused No. 2. 3. Sri Chandra Sekhar llapakurti, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. l{ is further submitted that the peti'tioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to ahy 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. _- 4. Per cot,fro, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant public prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material wI'tneSSeS remaI'n tO be examined. lt is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. ln view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the p3titiOner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 4- is that he had indulged in dealing with 40 K.Gs. of Ganja as a transporter. Accused No. 4 was not spot arrested. The role of accused No. 4 has come into light as per the confession of accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 was already enlarged on bail. Accused No. 3 was also enlarged on bail by order dated 17-02-2025 in Criminal Petition No.1407 of 2025 by a learned single judge of this Court. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner-accused No. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 10-04-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 147 days. The petitioner is permanent-resident of Yerrambally Village, Bhongiri Mandal. Thus, he has got fixed abode. Learned single judge of this Court, while allowing the criminal petition filed for releasing of accused No. 3, observed that investigation was completed and charge sheet could not be filed for want of inventory. The petitioner also stands on the similar footing of accused No. 3 on the principle `--| ``_ -I of parity. The only material against the petitioner is the confession of co- accused, which, in terms of evidentiary value, is very weak and insufficient for opposing baI'l. In this context, it iS apposite tO refer tO the judgment Of the Hon'ble Apex Court ih PIKrishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra pradesh1, wherein it is held at para Nos. 27 and 53 (iv) as under: "27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political b-IaS Or mala i-IdeS but th?i by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipetory bail overlooking. the other prima facie materials on record. Politic-al 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 pariicularlv, while consiclerinq the plea of anticipatorv bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litiaations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. However, political vendetta bv itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatorv 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 aIIcqed bv 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 corisiderina the plea of anticipatorv Q3jL The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into should be attribute.d to political bias or vendetta. 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 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 imDliCate another CO-accused:I 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1157 +t i \` gresg2S 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No. 4 and his period of judicial deterltion, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 4 on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall be enlarged on bail subjectto his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) With two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned oh every Saturday in between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. till cognizance is taken by learned the trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall not leave the limits of the district without prior permission from the investigating officer until the charge sheet is filed; (iv) The petitioner-accused .No. 4 shall not commI-I Or indulge in commission of any offence jn future; (v) The petitioner-accused.No. 4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (vi) The petitioner-accused No, 4 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; and (vii) The petitioner-accused No'. 4 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. 8. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. //TRUE COPY// i To, 1. The Judicial First Cl-a§`'s Magistrate Court Godavari District 2. The Superintendent, -Central Prison, Godavari District SD/-M.SRINIVAS sAEScSi:oTA#fE REGISTRAR FICER at Rampachodavaram, East Rajamahendravaram, East 3. The Station House`'-,Officer, Chinturu Police Station, AIluri Sitharama Raju District 4. One CC to M/s.ASTONISH LAWS, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy PSR iffffEEfflffffff© / / --- -E •\\\® \ _A HIGH COURT DR,YLR,J DATED : 03/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7709 of 2025 ALLOWED _\