IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8766 OF 2025 Betwee n : Eepu DhanaraJ-u, S/o. Late Pothuraju, Male, aged about 44 years Resident of Singaraju Peta, M Kothapatnam Village RoIIagunta Mandal, Anakapam District I[. Petjtjoner/Accused No|2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Faep. by the SHO, Jangareddigudem PS Eluru District, Through the public prosecutor High Court ofAndhra Pradesh ..u Respondent Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS I-S filed, Praying that in th'e circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on BAIL in`'' connection with FIR No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem p.s, EIuru District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusI-ng the Petition and thd'; affidavit filed I-n Support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SA! RAJESH Advocate for the petitioner, AssI-Slant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and the court made the, following. ORDER Dr. YL'` crl.p.No.8766 of 2d25 Dated 02.O9.2O25 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 fthe Cr.P.C.I)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSJ), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station, EIuru District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punisha.ble under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for brevity [the NDPS Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2025, at about 6:30 A.M., on the DevarapaIIi to Tallada NH-516 Highway, near the Agriculture Market Committee check post, Accused Nos.1 to 5 were transporting ganja illegally for wrongful gain. Accused Nos.1 to 7 had hatched a common plan to procure and transport the ganja to Telangana State and sell it at a higher price. Accused No.2 arranged the ganja, while Accused Nos.1 to 5 transported it as per the instructions of Accused Nos.6 and 7. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were arrested, and 189 packets of ganja contained in 12 bags, weighing 394.795 Kgs, along with crime vehicles i.e., Maruti Swift Dzire car and Tata lntra truck were seized under the cover of a medjators' report. 3 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.8766 of 2025 Dclted 02.09.2025 3. Mr.P.Venkata Sai Rajesh, 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 incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Accused No.5 was apprehended by the police on 25.04.2025, while the present case was registered Showing him as one of the`accused on 29.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order of the learned I Additional D-lstrict Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025, wherein at Paragraph Nos.8.12 and 8.13, the learned Trial Court observed that Accused No.4 was apprehended one day Prior tO the reg-lstration of the crime. lt is further submitted that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail on 31.07.2025, Accused No.5 also enlarged on bail by this Court on 30.08.2025, and the present petitioner iS also standing on the same footing on the principle of parity. Hence, it is urged to allow the petit'lon. 4. Per cot,fro, Ms.`P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant Of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. it is contendeci that if the petitioner is I. _-=\ 4 Dr. YL` Crl.P.No.8766 of 202` Dclted 02.09.2025 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 and I't iS urged tO dismiss the Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitI'Oner/Accused No.2 is that he indulged in dealing with 394.795 Kgs of ganja along with other accused. Indubitably, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail by the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, EIuru, v,'de order dated 31,07.2025 in CrI.M.P.No.409 of 2025 in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station. This Court in Crl.P.No.6196 of2025 v,'de order dated 30.08.2025, granted bail to the Accused No.5. lt is important and relevant to extract the findings of the learned Trial Court in its order at Paragraph Nos.8.12 and 8.13, which are extracted under: 8.12. Most compellingly, the CCTV footage from the lndane Gas Godown at Smarlakota provides concrete visual evidence that corroborates the petitione:s assertion regarding Accused No.4 apprehension before the alleged incident. This documentary evidence substantially undermines the prosecution]s timeline of events and raises legitimate questions about the®case's foundational facts. 8.13. After careful examination of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners may not be guilty of the alleged offences uncler the Act. The available evidence, when viewed in its totality, presents sufficient doubt about the petitioners' involvement to meet the E`. .i -_.i '¢ rJ` Dr. YLR, J crI.P.No.8766 of 2025 Dated 02.O9.2025 threshold und6r Section 37. Moreover, although in the CD it was alleged that the petitioners Were involve_d_ !n simila.r o.pepc?s, the pro-secutionls inemo filed on 30.07.?Q25_ _rpy.eals. that 4cc,¥se^ 'No.4 has no prior cr-Iminal record. While_ Accused. .No.? reportedly involved in other Cases, nOrle Of, the.T. relet,e to_ offences-under the Act. Similarly, there iS nO tangible eVidPnPe to suggest that the petitioners are likely to commit Similar offences if released on bail. 7. On careful perusal of the above Observations, it iS Clear that Accused No.4 was apprehended One day Prior tO the alleged OCCurrenCe. He was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer on 28.04.2025, as seen from the ccT\/ footage obtained from the lndane Gas godown at Samarlakota. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further Submits that the POliCe also filed a counter in the criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the learned Trial Court, wherein a reference Was made tO the Said CCT\/ footage regarding the apprehension of Accused No.4 one day prior to the alleged incident. It is further contended by the learned COunSel for the Petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2025 for the alleged transportation and possession of 394.795 Kgs of ganja. The genuineness of the Prosecution case was expressly doubted by the learned Trial Court while granting bail tO Accusec! Nos.3 and 4. The case of the present Petitioner also Stands On the similar footing. The petitioner was arrested On 29.04.2025 as per the remand report. 6 Dr. YL CrI.P.No.8766 of 202` Dated 02.O9.2025 qQI Be that as it may, the petitioner/Accused No.2 has been in judicial custody for the past 126 days. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the confession of Accused No.5 before the police. However, such confession is not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence A/cA' 9. Aforfiori, the HonJble Apex Court in P. Krishna IVIohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at para No.53 (iv) it is held as under: 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges-. (iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the r_igour 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 -ls 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 co_nfess!_onal statements are rendered inadmissible bv virtue of Section 25_ 9f the__Evidence Acts the Provision Of Section 30 would be of no avai, and__ no'reliance can be Placed On Such confessional Statement Of an accused tO implicate another coraccused." 10. While considering the baI'I applicatI'On for grant Of bail, the sole confession of the accused may not be relied upon. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Accused No.1 was also enlarged on bail by the learned I AdditI'Onal District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, v,-de order dated 29.08.2025 in CrI.M.P.No.487 of 2025. ll. Considering the entire gamut of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and in view of the fact that Accused Mos.3 and 4 were enlarged on bail with specific observations of €= ~ pr.=3 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 i_-±S%:==Z=!!gr,,_-:-,.=`:~=-``=-i-.``_ 'se •EEii Dr. YLR, J crl.p.No.8766 of 2025 Dclted 02.09.2025 the learned Trial Court, and that Accused No.5 was also granted bail by this court, this court is inclined to enlarge the petit-loner on bail subject to stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged On bail subject to he execut-lng a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two Sureties for the like Sum each to the satisfact-Ion of the learned Judicial F|lrst Class Mag-lstrate Court _(Junior Division), Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. 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. iv. The petit-loner/Accused No.2 shall not commit Or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The pe{it'loner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate With the invest'lgating officer in further investigation of the case and €-i-qu* `-` shall make himself available for interrogation investI'gating Officer aS and When required. Dr.+` Crl.P.No.8766 of 20< Dated 02-09'2025 gee by the vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promI'Se tO any Person acquainted With the facts Of the Case SO aS tO dissuade him/her from dI-SCIOSing Such facts tO the COurt Or tO any POIjce offI-Cer. 12. Accordingly, the CrI'minaI Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// oft?o SD/- +K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTAN^T #EGISTP`AR SECTl FFICER To, 1. The JudI-CI-al First CIass Magistrate (Junior Dl-vision), Jangareddigudem, Eluru Djstrl-ct. 2. The Superintendent, central Prison, Nellore. 3. The SHO, Jangareddigudem ps Eluru District. 4. One CC to sRl. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh.[ouT] 6. Ome spare copy ksr I.± ~` t1 HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED :02/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8766 of 2025 ALLOWED