APHC010670702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12834/2025 Between: 1.JOGA LOHITH YADAV, S/O VENKATA SRINIVAS,AGED 23 YEARS, C/YADAV,D. NO. 29-40-3, GOLLALAPALEM, OLD JAIL ROAD,VISAKHAPATNAM, 9160277369. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the State Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh AmaravatiThrough SHO Machavaram Police StationVijayawada City. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The 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.3 on bail in Crime No.319 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered against the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 114 days. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Petitioner is a law abiding citizen. The Petitioner would abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence and it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that investigation is at progressive stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also further stressed the gravity of NDPS offences and the recovery of MDMA and LSD from co‑accused A1 and A2, alleging a wider conspiracy involving the Petitioner through chats, call records, and money transfers. It was argued that Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ bars bail in such cases and that releasing the Petitioner may hinder trial, as key witnesses remain to be examined and there is risk of evidence tampering and it is urged to dismiss the Petition. 5. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he was involved in the alleged trafficking of narcotic substances solely on the basis of confessional statements made by co‑accused A1 and A2, 3 certain WhatsApp chats, call records, and alleged money transfers. It is undisputed that no contraband was recovered from his possession at the time of arrest, and the only articles seized were a smoking apparatus (bong) and a mobile phone, which are not prohibited under ‘the NDPS Act.’ The prosecution seeks to connect him with the seizure made from A1 and A2, though the Petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and was apprehended three days later. Thus, the case against him rests entirely on circumstantial and some material without any direct recovery or conscious possession linking him to the alleged offence. The Petitioner is at an impressionable age of 23 years. He is a student. Except the confessional statement of co-accused Nos.1 & 2 the Investigating Officer in spite of granting sufficient time had not collected any relevant material or evidence to connect the Petitioner to the case. In this regard it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan 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 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 4 6. This is the second bail application. First bail application vide order dated 17.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.10199 of 2025 was dismissed on the ground that the investigation was at initial stage. Although the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in dealing with a commercial quantity, there is presently no admissible evidence establishing his substantial involvement in the case. 7. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, the continued detention of the Petitioner would amount to unwarranted pre‑trial incarceration, particularly in light of the fact that no contraband was recovered from his possession and the prosecution case against him rests solely on circumstantial and inadmissible evidence. It is further noted that Accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail and five prosecution witnesses have been examined, thereby reducing any apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. In these circumstances, and keeping in mind the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, this Court finds sufficient grounds to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with certain stringent conditions. 8. Considering the gravity of the case and the nature of the allegations, in the circumstance of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail with certain stringent conditions. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties each for 5 the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 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. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 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. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 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. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.12.2025 VTS