[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Erla Vinay Kumar Biyyam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
APHC010347982025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7187/2025
Between:
1. ERLA VINAY KUMAR @ BIYYAM, S/O RAMU, AGE 26 YEARS, R/O
NEAR VIVEKANANDA HOSPITAL NT COLLEGE ROAD, SANGAM
OFFICE, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM
2. KILLI THARUN KUMAR LADDA, S/O RAJU, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O
D.NO.32-30-144, SVP NAGAR, KOBBARITHOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer,
Arilova Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to release the petitioner on Bail in
connection with Crime No. 104 of 2025 on the file of the Arilova
Visakhapatnam Police Station and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
BANDI PRAVEENA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr.YLR,J
CRL.P.No.7187/2025The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 &483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) and 437 &
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C), seeking
to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail in Cr.No.104 of 2025
of Arilova Police Station, Visakhapatnam District registered against the
petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 herein for the offence punishable under
Section 21 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for brevity ‘the NDPS Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, on 03.03.2025 at about
07:00 hours, while the warder was conducting rounds near Sneha Sarovar
block, he found that Accused Nos.1 and 2 smoking beedies. The warder
checked both the accused and found one small bottle of Ganja oil in Accused
No.1 pocket. Upon enquiry, Accused No.1 stated that healong with Accused
Nos.3 to 5 and another person went to Narsipatnam and procured Ganja oil
from unknown person and brought the small quantity of Ganja oil to jail. The
de-facto complainant handed over the property to the Police Station and a
case was registered.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
4. Smt Bandi Praveena, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioners have not committed any offence; petitioners were falsely
implicated by the police in the crime; petitionersare the sole breadwinners;
3
Dr.YLR,J
CRL.P.No.7187/2025
petitioners would abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and
urged to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitionersarethe habitual
offenders, involved in other offences, some more material witnesses have to
be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioners are enlarged on
bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they would escape
from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrayed in this case as
Accused Nos.3 and 4 as per the confession given by Accused No.1 who was
found in possession of 20 grams of Ganja oil. Pursuant to the confession of
Accused No.1, in the course of investigation, petitioners were arrested on
03.03.2025. The petitioners have been in the judicial custody for more than
120 days. Even though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that
petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 having 10 antecedents and many of them are
pertaining to offences under ‘the NDPS Act‘, the seized contraband from the
possession of Accused No.1 is not commercial quantity. There are no
antecedents against petitioner No.2/Accused No.4.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the
petitioners, and their alleged role in the case and the period of detention
undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners
on bail with the following stringent conditions:
4
Dr.YLR,J
CRL.P.No.7187/2025i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be enlarged on bail
subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for
the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall appear before
the Station House Officer, Arilova Police Station,
Visakhapatnam, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and
05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall not leave the limits
of the District without prior permission from the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall not commit or
indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall cooperate with
the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and
shall make themselves available for interrogation by the
investigating officer as and when required.
vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall 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.
5
Dr.YLR,J
CRL.P.No.7187/2025vii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4shall surrender their
passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that
they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that
effect to the Investigating Officer.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date:21.07.2025
KAS
[ad_2]
Source link