APHC010413972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8351 OF Between: Bommisetty Hari Kiran, (Mentioned as Hari Kiran in the FIR), Age 26 Years C/o. Bommisetty Penchalaiah, R/o.4/28, Siddulapalli, Tallapaka, Rajampeta Mandai, Mannur, Annamayya District - 516126. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh. Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Through Station House Officer Chinnachowk U/G PS. Kadapa District. ...respondent/complainant Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Petitioner/Accused. No.4 be released on bail in connection with the FIR.No.286 OF 2024, Chinnachowk U/G PS Kadapa District, dated 02.08.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased pending final adjudication of the criminal petition, It is just and necessary that the Petitioner/Accused.No.4 be released interim-bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR.No.286 OF 2024, Chinnachowk U/G PS, Kadapa District dated 02.08.2024 AND/OR pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. on Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL PETITION No.8351 of 2025 Between: Bommisetty Hari Kiran ...ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPODENT **** DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED 29.08.2025 C--' 2 SUBMITTED FOR APPRQVai • the honourable dr justice Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to fair copy of the Judgment? see the y Yes/No 3 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No.8351 nf 709/; % 29.08.2025 # Between: Bommisetty Hari Kiran ...ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap Rep By Its PP Hyd ...RESPODENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners ; Dheera Kanishka '"Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor < Gist: The Order of the Court was delivered by Dr. Justice Y.Lakshmana Rao :=— For the convenience of exposition, this order is divided into the following parts ;— A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION B. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER C. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE D. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION E. ANALYSIS F. CONCLUSION > Head Note: 4 ? Cases referred: 1) 2025 see Online Del 3016 2) eRM-M-54032-2024 (O&M) 3) erl.P.No.3204 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 4) SPl.A (eriminal).No.9540 of 2025 dated i 5) (2018) 13 see 813 6) 2025 LiveLaw (Se) 387 7) 2024 see Online Mad 445 8) 2022 see Online Bom 1631 9) 1995 Supreme(Raj) 935 10) (1952) 1 see 275 11) (2018) 8 see 271 07.07.2025 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8351/2025 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.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.286 of 2024 of Chinnachowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 02.08.2024, acting upon credible information received from informants regarding the illegal sale of Ganja in the Chinnachowk area of Kadapa City, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk (U/G) Police Station, proceeded to the scene of offence along with a Gazetted Officer and two Revenue Officials. Upon arrival, the police apprehended one Saraka Narasimhulu (A-1), who was allegedly found in possession of approximately 2 kilograms of Ganja, concealed in a white plastic bag placed on a blue Honda Dio scooter bearing Registration No.AP39-RF-3400. The seizure was affected in the presence of panch witnesses, and the contraband was duly documented. During interrogation. Accused No.1 confessed that he, along with Venkata Sandeep Kumar (A-2), Harikrishna (A-3), Bommisetty Hari Kiran (A-4), and Chidananda Reddy @ Chitti (A-5), was engaged in the sale of Ganja in small packets to various individuals i in and around Kadapa Town, was procured from Araku It was further alleged that the said contraband and distributed among the accused persons for resale ^Q^g^NIlONS^F THE Cni IMgc, on a commission basis. EQBJm PETITint^- learned Counsel for 3- Mr. Dheera Kanishka the Petitioner, submits was falsely implicated in this that the Petitioner has not committed any offence. He case. He is ready and abide granting pre-arrest bail. Rajampeta Mandal, Material portion of i the past one there is no any conditions to be iimposed by this Court while permanent resident of Siddulapalli Mannur, Annamayya District, thus he investigation is completed. Case is of the He is Tallapaka, got fixed abode. year 2024. For Petitioner, and is nrged to grant ore- year the police have not chosen to arrest the considerable progress in the investigation. It i arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.4. ^S^UMENTS of THF QT^TF- 4- Per contra, Ms. P.Akila opposed in Naidu, the learned Assistant bail stating that i Public Prosecutor, granting of pre-arrest investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The source of whothe linchpin in the more witnesses are to be arrested. The Petitioner is not pre-arrest bail is neither a license a dangerous offence against the society nor a shield committed grave offence. contraband is to be traced out and established to know is still at nascent stage. Some crime is. Investigation i examined and some entitled for grant of for commission of protection for the more accused are to be pre-arrest bail. Grant of or persons who have allegedly as per 7 the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab^ and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2. If the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be available for the investigation, and he would repeat the same offence. It is urged to dismiss the bail application. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Prosecutor. I have perused the record. POINT FOR CQNSIDERATinN- In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest ball?” 5. Public 6. ANALYSIS: 7. The High Court of Delhi in Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau\ a decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Nos.20 to 22, it is held as under: at paragraph 20. Although this Court is conscious that it should exercise restraint in the grant of pre-arrest bail in NDPS cases, in the peculiar facts of the present case, in the absence PLany direct recovery from the aoplicants and considering that the investigation is already complete, in the opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served hv subiectinq the applicants to incarceration. The prosecution has also not put forth any cogent arguments as to why the arrest of the applicants is required in the present CdSQ. ♦ 21. Inasmuch as the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is trite law that when there is no material to link the aoDlicants with the recovery of thn commercial quantity of contrabands, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPfi Act would not apply. ' 22. It has been pointed out that some of the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail on account of the delay in trial. While there is a difference between the considerations in grant of regular bail and pre-arrest bail. It cannot be ignored that the trial is unlikely to conclude expeditiousl.y No purpose will be served by subiectinq the applicants to suffer the threat of imoendina arrest, only for them tn hp granted requiar bail at a later stage on the arnnnd of delay.” '2025 see Online Del 3016 8 8. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Ashu v. State of Punjab^, a decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Nos.7.3 & 8, it is held as under: at paragraph '7.3 It is a well established principle of law that at the incipient stage of investigation, when the investigation is still ongoing, the Court must restraint and refrain from undertaking a meticulous examination of evidence coilected thus far. The process of investigation is dynamic, and evidence may evolve or be corroborated, as the investigation progresses. Howeve,r as anticipatory bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial In accordance with established principles of law. Howeve,r while adjudicating a plea for anticipatory bail, this court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the^specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prime facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. The petitioner is sought to be arraigned as an accused in the FIR question, solely, on the basis of disclosure statement made bv coaccused from whom there is recovery of contraband. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband in question. It is not in dispute that the petitioner i/i/as not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. Howeve,r the same cannot be construed as sufficient by itself to decline the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner especially when the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of the interim protection earlier afforded by this Court and has cooperated therein. ” A learned single judge of this Court in Kotte Nagendra @ K. Nagendra Kumar v. State of A.P.,^ another decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at paragraph No.6, it is held as under: "6. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A-2 has indulged in any of the activities under NDPS Act and also considering the fact that he added as A-2 in the crime only basing on the confession statement of A-1, this Court prime facie is of the view that when the allegation does not attract Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, considering the bar under Section 37 of in 9. was 2CRM-M-54032-2024 (O&M) Crl.P.No.3204 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 9 the NDPS Act does not arise. Therefore, this is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. ” Another learned single judge of this Court in Kadvakudur Venkata Ganesh babu v. State of A.P., another decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at paragraph No.4, it is held as under: “4. The petitioner herein is said to be a 19 years old boy and pursuing B.B.A., in K.L University. Though the offence alleged against the petitioner is under NDPS Act, since the petitioner is a student with no criminal antecedents and considering the guantity seized, this court is inclined to consider the request of the petitioner to grant anticipatory Bail on certain conditions. ” However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana^, it is held that in general Antici’patory Bail is not maintainable against the accused, who is involved in NDPS cases. 10. 11. 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab^ in another decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at paragraph Nos.14 & 15, it is held as under: 14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21-9-2017 fBeant Sinah v. State of Punjab, 2017 see OnLine P&H 3801] passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21-9-2017 fBeant Sinah v. State of Punjab. 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 38011 is only to be set aside and we do so. 15. Consequently, the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court is also set aside. All the three accused in both these appeals are directed to surrender before the trial court. However, we make it clear that they are free to apply for regular bail, in which case, the Sessions Court will consider the matter on the merits of the plication. Before parting with the judgment, we also painfully note that even in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there ivas no reference to the regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh and that too, production of an interim order passed by the High Court. Had the same been noticed, the State would have certainly taken steps much earlier. This is once again to remind the police and the prosecutor that they need to show due diligence and vigilance while dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act." on '•Special Leave to Appeal {Criminal) No.9540 of 2025,^d^d 07.07.2025 ^(2018) 13 see 813 T 10 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court contention \ in Ku/want Singh Tapentadol psychotropic- substance V. State of Punjab^held Hydrochloride speciifed i when a that '^as raised that included i tablet is not ‘c the schedule, of the Samuel Inoamaobi v. tablet is not the NDPS Act in the list of appended to ‘the NDPS High Courts i - State of IWaharasht Act’, by considering the V. Stated and Novafor Tapentadol Hydrochloride reported judgments 'n Mohd. Su/than ra®, it was held that a psychotropic substance, iincluded i pre-arrest bail to the 'n the schedule of ‘ Petitioner therein. inclined to grant and 14. With to observe that the imposes a ri ogual force to regard to the commercial quantity, this Court would be constrained of ‘the NDPS Act’ applicable with herein, that the offence and is not merely procedural but ■ Of course, in statutory framework rigorous threshold for under Section 37 the grant of bail which is antic/patory bail; the twin conditions laid do Court must be likely to satisfied that the commit any offense substantive safeguards accused is not guilty of the While on bail. are not menace of drug trafficking against the the instant case the seized contraband of Rajasthan i was not a commercial 'n Prabhu/al & paragraph No.6 it is held as under: 15. quantity. The High Court Rajasthan^, at Ann V. State of IharpiSUon^ RcZad^^rTis M/as a/so contended that ^2025 LiveLaw (SC) •2022lccS"r'’°'^"'''“= ^1995 Sj, °riL^ne Bom 1631 1995 Supreme(Raj) 935 387' ' 11 of co-accused Ram Kumar to whom B^rTSah Tw 1° louvered, as well as the applicatiori of co-accused ® oonsidering the scope of anticipatory bail in registered under the N.D.RS. Act, it was observed by me. asunder- The object and reason behind passing the amendments was to make strinqent oNectotThe Ac anf ^^ould not be used to defeat the undnr technical plea should not be a ground for under -serving liberty ^ non-obstante clause in Section 37 (1) of the /Act makes is clear should m^bT ?/ to be severally dealt with and that he in Section 37 arJ f h tI conditions contained % anf rZZ .f^^isfied Though the Act specifically does not prohibit the grant °t^ticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. RC.. but the legislative intent can be onendlr. of the The Narcotic Drug and Rsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special enactment reLl^hL%^nnS ^ stringent provisions for the control and ,fnH operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances The f ? sfAVnqeA?f provisions of bail intrndunnri 2_gf 1989 make it clear that anticipatory ba.l should ^ f irivestiqatinq agency was abusing thef^??^Ui.^ gt the Act with malafide obiect to arrest any person. In such allowed to have its own course " c^ntlnlnr^^lnf^ ^cf prowc/es punishment to the owner or occupier or having the he ZZnr fn space, place, animal or conveyance to proJs^^^^ ^ a^y of/7e/-persoa of an offence punishable under any a case by Act No not be granted In such casern cases, the law should he 1u. The 'jiani oi anticipaiory Daii at the jjre-investigation stage in cases a matter that requires extreme caution emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is virtually impossible for any Court to arrive at a ultimate conclusion of innocence or guilt when material evidence is yet to be collected, and the investigation under ‘the NDPS Act’ is as remains ongoing. The Hon ble Apex Court has consistently underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, in regard to commercial quantity, which prescribes stringent conditions for bail in drug- related offences. While rare, fact-specific exceptions where anticipatory bail has been granted do exist; however, these are isolated instances and do not set a precedent for broader application. Such decisions are to be viewed as exceptional and should not dilute the legislative purpose of preventing misuse of bail provisions in serious drug offences. No document is filed or contention 12 is raised that ‘the NDPS Act.,’ object to arrest him and the i NDPS Act’. was invoked against the petitioner with malafide investigation agency abuse the provisions of ‘the 17. Therefore, cautious stance liberty with societal interests, narcotics crimes. The risk of abuse warrant a restrictive approach to While is justified by the need to balance individual particularly given the grave harm caused by and the societal impact of drug offences anticipatory bail at this stage of investigation. recognizing that exceptions remains imperative that may arise in unique circumstances, it such applications be scrutinized meticulously. ensuring that the fundamental legislative i upheld. Consequently, anticipatory not be granted lightly. intent and judicial principles are bail in cases under ‘the NDPS Act’ should 18. Albeit there Petitioner/Accused No.4, are no adverse antecedents and nothing was seized from the Petitioner, the Petitioner is disentitled for grant of role in the instant reported against the possession of the pre-arrest bail because his case is required to be further ascertained by the some more incriminating material. The investigating officer by collecting investigation is still at nascent stage even after completion of registration. According to the learned Assistant - one year of its nt Public Prosecutor, some more witnesses have to be examined and some more information is yet to be collected and some more accused have to be apprehended. Undoubtedly, the confession aiv 19. given to a police officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and if cannot be a sole basis ■ 13 for arrest of accused as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 10 and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. 11 the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but if such confession leads to a discovery of fact, it is relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whereas, Accused Nos. 1,2, and 5 have only been granted regular bail. They were not even granted pre-arrest bail. However, the Petitioner herein, arrayed as Accused No. 4, seeks anticipatory bail. Thus, the principle of parity cannot be invoked in the present case. The Petitioner is aged 26 years and is arraigned in the case for the alleged offence of indulging in non-commercial quantity, punishable under ‘the NDPS Act’, carrying a maximum sentence of years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000,/-. 2A/enkata Sandeep Kumar, procured contraband (Ganja) from Araku and kept in the room of Petitioner/Accused No.4. It is further alleged that Accused No. 2 instructed the Petitioner, along with Harikrishna and one Chindananda Reddy @ Chitt, to sell one kilogram of Ganja in Kadapa town to unidentified individuals. Additionally, it is alleged that the Petitioner, in active connivance with other accused persons, was involved in the sale of Ganja in smaller quantities approximately 10 grams per packet, priced at Rs.500/- each, pursuant to the directions of Accused No. 2 for which Accused No.2 gave certain amount towards commission for selling of Ganja in loose packets. The precise role of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence is yet to 20. te .Accuseo fMO. { i 1 I 10'(1952) 1 see 275 (2018) 8 see 271 14 be conclusively established, and it is subject to further investigation. Given the gravity of the offence and the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is not found convincing and reasonable. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the instant case facts and circumstances are altogether different. When the ingredients of any of the provincial provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ are not attracted, this Court can grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. Whether the alleged confession given by a co-accused against other accused is relevant or not is a matter of consideration before the learned Trial Court during the trial. Such confession is void or so cannot be decided while determining the for grant of pre-arrest bail. 21. case CONCLUSION: 22. Petitioner/Accused No.4 has not made out any case for grant of pre arrest bail. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO^FFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble Dr Justice Y. LAKSHMANA RAO (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) To 1. The I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chinnachowk U/G Police Station, Kadapa District. 3. One CC to Sri Dheera Kanishka, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCsto Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P 5. Nine (9) L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 7. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 8. Two CD Copies AKR TAC [OPUC] ’ Association high court DATED;29/08/2025 ORDER ORLP NO. 8351 OF 2025 S 23 SEP 2025 m ^ Current Section dismissing the criminal petition