APHC010368322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5935/2026 Between: 1. PULGAM KONDA REDDY, S/O SURYANARAYANA REDDYAGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC STUDENTR/O 53-19-16/A, CHAITHANYA NAGAR, MADDLLAPALEMVISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI 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.266 of 2025 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged 2 offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law and urged to dismiss the Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3 in Cr.No.266 of 2025, which was registered on 23.06.2026. In the first confession statement of Accused No.1, the Petitioner/Accused No.3 was not implicated. The relevancy and admissibility of the confession of Accused No.1, given to 3 the mediator before the Investigating Officer, is a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage, particularly as to whether it is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18721. After being released from judicial custody for about seven months, Accused No.1 was issued a notice by the Investigating Officer, pursuant to which he appeared before the Investigating Officer and gave a second confession on 04.04.2026, wherein the role of the present Petitioner came to light. 6. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that several cases have been registered against the Petitioner, including Cr.No.319 of 2025 on the file of Machavaram Police Station under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, Cr.No.235 of 2025 on the file of IV Town Police Station under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, Visakhapatnam, and Cr.No.306 of 2025 on the file of Arilova Police Station for offences under the provisions of ‘the BNS’. This Court, in Crl.P.No.4425 of 2026 dated 03.07.2026, granted regular bail to the Petitioner in Cr.No.235 of 2025 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was indulged in dealing with 6 grams of Hydra Ganja, which is non‑commercial in nature; MDMA tablets weighing 3.5 grams, which are also non‑commercial in nature; and MDMA crystals weighing 32 grams, which is a commercial quantity. Except for the confession of Accused No.1, which was recorded for the second time after 1 ‘the I.E Act’ 4 he was enlarged on bail, there is no other material to incriminate the Petitioner. 8. In the instant case, the confession of Accused No.1 against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is that a telephonic conversation took place between the Petitioner and Accused No.1 regarding the introduction of Accused Nos.2 and 3. The Petitioner is aged about 23 years and is a student. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he is the District Student Youth Wing President of a political party in Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 107 days. He was already in judicial custody beyond statutory period in another case and enlarged on bail in that case. He is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam. He has got fixed abode. If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of his interfering with the investigation, threatening the witnesses, or tampering with the evidence. 9. In this regard, it is profitable and relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it is held that a confession made to the police by an accused is inherently inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be relied upon at the bail stage or during trial. Consequently, Section 30 does not permit using such a confession to implicate a co-accused. Thus, at Para No.53 (iv) it is held as under: 22025 SCC Online SC 1157 5 “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.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, and the veracity of the material collected so far, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail, subject to stringent conditions. 11. 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 him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 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. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 6 iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. 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. vi. 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. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.07.2026 PRA 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5935 of 2026 Date: 31.07.2026 PRA