Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31110 (AP)

KODA GOVIND v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/9034/2025 · 2025-09-17

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010454182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9034/2025 Between: Koda Govind ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.5 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2023 of K.KotapaduPolice Station, AnakapalliDistrict, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)read with 8(c)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are thaton 09.09.2023 at 12.00 hours at Visakhapatnam Side Bus Stop at K.Kotapadu Junction, on receipt of reliable information, the Sub Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators found the accused having bags. The police caught hold the accused and found 22 kgs of ganja. Then the police seized 22 kgs of ganja in the presence of mediators. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Balabhadruni Manohar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if 3 any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the Petitioner.The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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 bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 7. The allegations against the petitioner/Accused No.5, as seen from the record, are that he allegedly supplied 22 kgs of ganja to Accused Nos.1 to 4. The role of Accused No.5 came to light based on the confession of the other accused. The petitioner surrendered on 29.07.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 49 days. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which was numbered as N.S.C.No.148 of 2025. It takes a considerable length of time for the trial Court to take up the matter for trial, and until such time, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody is notjustified. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 49 days, he was surrendered on 29.07.2025. The petitioner has got fixed abode. He is permanent resident ofMunchingput Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.5shall be enlarged on bail subject to heexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each 5 to the satisfaction of thelearned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.5shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail. iii. The petitioner/Accused No…5shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.5shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.5shall 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. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.5shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.09.2025 S D P 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9034 of 2025 Date:18.09.2025 S D P