Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ragala Revanth Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 July, 2025
1
APHC010281612025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3520]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5845/2025
Between:
1. Ragala Revanth Kumar, S/O Syam Kumar, aged about 28 years occ. Auto
driver, r/o d.no.26-1-61, Ward No.2, Ram Nagar, Near RTC Garage,
Chirala, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh-523155.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of at
Amaravati.
...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 direct the respondent/police to
enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.27 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 of Chirala II Town Police Station, Bapatia
District previously Prakasam District in the present circumstance and also pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Crl.P.No.5845 of 2025
ORDER:
Petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.27 of 2025
of Chirala II Town Police Station, Bapatla District, registered with the allegations
of committing the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [ for short ‘NDPS Act‘],
filed the present application invoking Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNNS], with a prayer to grant pre-arrest bail, directing
his release in the event of his arrest, in respect of crime referred.
2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition.
3. Heard both sides extensively.
4. The petitioner denied all the allegations as to his involvement contending
that no contraband is seized from the petitioner, there is no direct evidence and
the inadmissible confession of the other accused, from whom the alleged
contraband is seized alone, is the basis. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. Point for determination:
Whether the petitioner/A3 is entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail in
respect of Crime No. 27 of 2025 of Chirala II Town Police Station, in terms
of Section 482 of BNSS? If so, on what conditions?
3
Case of the Prosecution:-
6. A1 purchased huge quantity of Ganja from A7. On 03.03.2024 A3
contacted A1 for supply of Ganja of 6Kgs and deal was settled at Rs.7000/- per
Kg. At the instance of A1, A4 and A6 went to the house of A3 and handed over 2
Kgs of Ganja, for which A3 gave Rs.4000/- out of Rs.14,000/- and asked them to
handover remaining Ganja agreeing to pay the balance, on supply of balance
Ganja. Accordingly on 05.03.2025 when A4 to A6 came to a place near the
Bridge at Bandaru Nageswara Rao Colony, Chirala, to hand over the same to
A3, police party conducted raid in the presence of mediators, and recovered the
Ganja. The statements given by the accused No.4 to 6, disclosed the
involvement of the other accused including A3/ petitioner herein. Hence, the
case is registered against the petitioner/A3 and he is liable for legal action.
Case of the Petitioner:
7. There is no recovery from the petitioner. There is no direct evidence. The
burden to prove is against A4, and the alleged quantity is not commercial
quantity. He has no criminal antecedents.
Arguments:
Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in
SLP.No.12621 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024, where anticipatory bail was granted to
co-accused, when the same relief was sought by the other accused, observed
4
that the State may move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail,
granted to other co-accused. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in another
SLP.No.9540 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025 observed that there is no error in
refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the NDPS cases.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the offence is serious in
nature and the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, and involved in (13)
cases, including the cases under NDPS Act. Therefore, he does not deserve
granting of pre-arrest bail.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:-
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts in the cases
cited are not known and the facts are to be considered while granting or refusing
the bail; in the present case, there is no recovery from the petitioner/accused.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while referring the Remand Report of
other accused submitted that the statements of the co-accused as to handing
over of certain Ganaja and waiting to handover the balance etc., are concocted
and they are inadmissible.
5
Analysis and Discussion:-
Precedents:
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring the observations made in Shri
Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab 1, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi)2, vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017,
dated 29.01.2020, observed that certain parameters kept in view, while dealing
with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. They are as follows:-
“(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused
must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused
has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of
any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other
offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused
very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with
even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter
of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to
be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
1
1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565
2
(2020) 5 SCC 1
6free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness
or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the
normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
13. From the opposition of the Prosecution, it is seen that the petitioner/A3 is
having criminal history and suspect in Cherala II Town Police Station and they
are maintained vide Suspect Sheet No.125. The particulars of the cases
registered against A3 are hereunder:-
3. Cr.No. 232/2019 u/s 352, 353 r/w 34 IPC of Chirala II Town PS.
4. Cr.No. 147/2022 u/s 379 IPC of Palakollu Town P.S.
5. Cr. No. 103/2022 u/s 379 IPC of Dendulur P.S.
7. Cr.No. 170/2022 u/s 7(A) r/w 8(c) of APP Act of Chirala II Town PS.
8. Cr.No. 218/2022 U/s 379 IPC of Patamata PS, Vijayawada City.
9. Cr. No. 65/2023 u/s 379 IPC of Patamata PS of NTR District.
10. Cr.No. 56/2023 u/s 8 (c) r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town PS.
11. Cr.No. 80/2023 u/s 8 (c)r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town PS.
12. Cr.No 87/2023 u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b) NDPS Act of Chirala I Town P.S
13. Cr. No. 91/2023 u/s 20 (b) (ii) (C) r/w 8 (c) NDPS Act of Chirala II Town P.S.
7Conclusion:-
14. Upon considering the aspects of 1) nature and gravity of the accusation
2) likelihood of the accused absconding, 3) tampering with evidence, 4) criminal
antecedents of the accused 5) likelihood of repetition of offences, it is found that
this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly against the petitioner.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed accordingly.
______________________________
A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date: 14.07.2025
Pnr
8
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Crl.P.No.5845 of 2025
Dated 14.07.2025
Pnr