APHC010582162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11286/2025 Between: Kondiseeti Jagadeesh @ Pala Jagadeesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.8 on bail in Crime No.366 of 2025 of Vedayapalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 herein for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) 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 prosecution are that on 05.09.2025 at about 21.00 hrs, upon receiving credible information about illegal sale and transportation of Ganja, the complainant, Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem P.S., Nellore, along with staff and mediators, proceeded to Donthali Adda Road Junction, Nellore Podalakur Main Road. A white Toyota Glanza car bearing No.AP 39 QY 8092 was intercepted, and six occupants who attempted to flee were apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 6. They confessed to transporting Ganja for illegal sale. Accused No.7 escaped on a motorcycle, and Accused No.8, who organized the offence, was already in judicial custody in another case. A total of 11 packets of Ganja weighing 23.470 Kgs, six mobile phones, and the Toyota Glanza car, all valued at about Rs.5,00,000/-, were seized under a mahazarnama. The accused were arrested, and a case was registered the same day at 22.30 hrs. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr. Malireddy Gowtham, 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 his absconding or evading the process 3 of law. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of such a nature that do not warrant for further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, except for the confession statements of the co-accused, no other substantial material is available against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was earlier shown as an accused in Crime No.351 of 2025 for allegedly dealing with 19 kgs of Ganja, in which he was arrested on 24.08.2025. Pursuant to the execution of a PT warrant, the petitioner was again arrested on 13.10.2025. The counsel further contends that the latitude and longitude stages in the earlier FIR No.351 of 2025 and the present FIR No.366 of 2025 are exactly the same, and that mere CDRs between the petitioner and the other accused are not sufficient grounds to reject the bail application. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses 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 4 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 bail. The petitioner is the main conspirator and organiser. There are CDRs between Accused No.8 and the other accused, and it is urged that the petition be dismissed as the investigation is still at a progressive stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in dealing with commercial quantity of Ganja, and therefore, the bail petition deserves to be dismissed. 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?” ANALYSIS: 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein at Para No.53 (iv) it is held as under: “3. 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 implicate another co-accused.” 12025 SCC Online SC 1157 5 8. As seen from the record, a total ten cases have been registered against the petitioner, including one for murder and another for attempt to murder. The petitioner’s role came to light based on the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 6. It is true that the petitioner was not found at the scene of the offence. However, the prosecution alleges that he is the main conspirator and organiser of the crime. The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 70 days. It is further alleged that he was involved in dealing with 23.47 kgs of Ganja, which amounts to a commercial quantity. 9. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a cooked up case was registered against the petitioner as the petitioner was in jail eight days prior to the present case, the mediators’ report reflects that, in the month of August, the petitioner had brought 24 kgs of Ganja and kept it concealed. At this stage, the merits or demerits of the case cannot be gone into. 10. The Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem Police Station, submits that twelve cases have been registered against the petitioner; some of them were ended in compromise and some in acquittal, and at present, four cases are pending trial against him. Although CDRs cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the petitioner’s involvement in the offence, there were constant call conversations between the petitioner and the other accused at the relevant point of time. Crime in FIR No.351 of 2025 was registered on 24.08.2025. A certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam was produced by the manager of the hotel, indicating discrepancies in the CCTV footage of the reception area and the corridor of Room No.201 on 24.08.2025. 6 However, the present bail application does not pertain to Crime No.351 of 2025. At the appropriate stage in appropriate application, and in appropriate fora of alibi the aspect of the petitioner’s stay in the hotel at Secunderabad will be considered. 11. This Court, in Crl.P. No.10319 of 2025, granted bail on the ground that the contraband seized in that case was not of commercial quantity. In Crl.P. No.10314 of 2025 and batch, this Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the other accused in the present FIR No.366 of 2025. The investigation is still at a nascent stage, and several more witnesses are yet to be examined. 12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh 2 at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), 2(2020)12 SCC 122 7 (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) „24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.‟ 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify 8 satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely over looked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.” 13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner, as he was involved in dealing with commercial quantity of contraband. There are similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner had not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. For the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 14.11.2025 KMS 9 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11286 of 2025 Date:14.11.2025 KMS