* r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA ^AO""' CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9455 OF 2025 ..A * ^ O m a. X- \ <> i ' 'If > 'V i v' "i- f •V •*L f Between: Sinderi Sandeep @ Korra Ramu @ Ramarao, S/o late Kesavarao, aged 30 Years, R/o Bheemavaram Village, Lingavaram Post, Damannapalli Panchayat and Post, G.K. Veedi Mandal, ASR District. ... Petitioner/Accused-2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati i 3 .... Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 439- of Cr.P.C & Sec 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 108/2024 for punishable under sections 111 (2) (B) of BNS and SEC. 20 (B) (ii) (C), 25 r/w 8 (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Koyyuru Police Station Alluri Sitharamaraju District. j The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Advocate for the Petitioner, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER 1 APHC010479392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9455/^n9.i; [3521] RAO Between: Sinderi Sandeep @ Korra Ramu @ Ramarao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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.2 Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju on bail in Crime No. 108 of 2024 of District registered against the offences punishable under Section 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) and Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 2. 3. The petitioner/accused No. 2 was arrayed as an accused in this case based on the confession of accused No.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied 202 kgs of ganja, which is undoubtedly a commercial quantity. Except for the confession of accused No. 3 and the call data records between the prime accused and the petitioner, no other valid material has been gathered by the investigating officer against the petitioner. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against all the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 112 days. There are no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitoner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Bheemavaram Village, Alluri Seetharama Raju District. He has got fixed abode. If certain conditions are imposed, there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The period of custodial interrogation is also complete. No petition has been filed seeking further custodial interrogation of the petitioner to ascertain crucial information, such as how he allegedly supplied the contraband or the source of the contraband. There is absolutely no substantial material in the charge sheet incriminating , 3 t the petitioner in the alleged offence. The Inspector of Police, relying solely the confession of accused No.3, concluded the investigation against the petitioner without exploring further possibilities of collecting admissible and relevant material. Since the charge sheet has been filed, there is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with the investigation or threaten witnesses. It would take considerable time for the learned trial Court to take up the matter for disposal. Until such time, keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. on 4. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh\ 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 he placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible bv 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.” \ 5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions, this Court finds that the Petitioner has been arrayed as accused person solely on the basis of the confession statement of Accused No.3. It is well settled that such a statement. 2025 see Online Se 1157 , 4 being inadmissible against co-accused under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot form the sole basis for criminal culpability. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions; The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with three sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintapalli. I. ii. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall appear before the learned trial Court on every adjournment without fail. iii. The Petitioner/ Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. SD/- G.HELANAIDU DEPU-pjflEGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offence under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Superintendent, Visakhapatnam Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. 3. The SHO, Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District. 4. OneCCto SRI. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:17/11/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9455 of 2025 ALLOWED