IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11076 OF 2025 Between: Vantala Satyanarayana, S/o Masru, aged 31 years, PTG Kondu by Caste, R/o Sattibanda Village, Koraput Panchayat, Dumbriguda Mandal, ASR District. ...Petitioner/A4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Gantyada Police Station) Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 (under sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/A-4 on bail pending inquiry and trial in Crime No. Crime No. 107/2024 of Gantyada Police Station. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following 2 Dr.YLRJ Crl..PNo.11076 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 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.4 on bail in Crime No. 107 of 2024 of Gantyada Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(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. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused 3. No.4 is that he assisted in the transportation of 49.810 kgs of ganja, which is undoubtedly a commercial quantity. Except the confessional statement of Accused No.1, who was arrested on the spot, there is no other substantial incriminating material available against the petitioner/Accused No.4. 4. The petitioner/Accused No.4 is a coolie and a resident of Sattibanda Village, Koraput Panchayat, Dumbriguda Mandal, A.S.R. District. He has got fixed abode. No application has been filed seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner, and the period for such interrogation has already been completed. 3 Dr.YLR.J Crl.RNo.11076 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner/Accu sed No.4. So far, eight witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official and material witnesses. Therefore, the chances of the petitioner threatening the official witnesses, tampering with the evidence, or hampering the investigation may not arise. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2025 and he has been in the judicial custody for the past 145 days. If certain conditions are imposed on the petitioner/Accused No.4 while enlarging him on bail, the ends of justice would be met. 7. 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 Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under: To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prime facie case of political bias or mala tides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prime facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival political parties are at war which may ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal prosecutions there is bound to be some element of political bias or vendetta involved in the same. Howeve,r political vendetta bv itself is not sufficient for the grant of anticipatory bail. The courts should not lust look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constituting a prime facie case as alleged bv the State. It is only when the court is convinced more than prime facie that the allegations are frivolous and baseless, that the court may bring into the element of political vendetta into consideration for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The frivolity in the entire 27. ''2025 see Online Se 1157 ,4 Dr. YLR,J Crl..PNo.11076of2025 Dated 13.11.2025 case that the court may look into should be attributed to political bias or vendetta. 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 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- 53. accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent 8. 9. conditions; The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial I. First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) at Vizianagaram. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. , 5 Dr. YLR,J Crl.RNo.11076of2025 Dated 13.11.2025 The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall cooperate with the V. investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall not, directly or VI. 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. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTRE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) at Vizianagaram. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, Gantyada Police Station, Vizianagaram District 4. One CC to SRI. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Amaravati 6. One spare copy [OUT] cvss HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED: 13/11/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.11076 of 2025 ALLOWED