Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Seeram Aakash vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
APHC010013152025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA [3369]
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 276/2025
Between:
1. SEERAM AAKASH, S/O. RAJU @ SHIRAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, DOOR NO.L4-15-284,EGUVAPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PANJA JUNCTION,
TOWN KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.N.S.’), has been filed by the
Petitioner/ A.3 seeking bail in Cr.No.194 of 2024 on the file of I Town Police
Station, Visakhapatnam.
2. The above said crime was registered against the Petitioner/ A.3 herein
and others for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c), 25 r/w 8(c)
of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the
NDPS Act‘).
3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that, on 09.09.2024, on receiving
credible information, the SI of Police along with his staff and mediator rushed
to the Dry Dock, I Town area, Visakhapatnam City and found two persons
holding two gunny bags. On seeing the police party, they tried to escape from
the spot. The S.I. of Police with the assistance of his staff apprehended them
and found 24 kgs of ganja in their possession. The contraband was seized
under the cover of mediators report and the accused were remanded to
judicial custody. Based on the confessional statements of A.1, the Police
registered case against the present petitioner/A.3.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.3, submits that this Court has
previously granted bail to A.1 vide orders in Crl.P.No.7337 of 2024, who was
apprehended with contraband, and that the case of the present Petitioner/A.3
stands in a better footing than that of A.1. The counsel therefore requests that
bail be granted to the Petitioner/A.3.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail on the
ground that the contraband involved constitutes a commercial quantity. He
further states that the Petitioner/A.3, has two criminal antecedents.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their
submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the
report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be
reproduced.
3
7. Considering the submissions made and after perusal of the material on
record, more particularly the orders in Crl.P.No.7337 of 2024 dated
23.11.2024, it is evident that this Court had granted bail to A.1 due to non-
compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, relying on the judgment in
Simranjit Singh V. State of Punjab1 who was apprehended with contraband.
It is not the prosecution’s case that contraband was seized from the
possession of A.3. Given that this Court has already granted bail to A.1, who
was apprehended with contraband, it is observed that the present
Petitioner/A.3, stands in a better footing than A.1. Furthermore, Petitioner/A.3
has been in judicial custody since 20.09.2024, and it appears that most of the
investigation has been completed.
8. As seen from the record, there is no material to show that the grant of
bail to the Petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Nothing on the record
suggests that the Accused will likely commit an offence if released on bail.
9. At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioner are subject to the
trial’s outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time.
Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until his guilt or
innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the
accused would tamper with the Prosecution evidence or intimidate the
witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the Prosecution shows
that the Accused tried for such tampering/intimidation.
10. The Petitioner’s continued preventive custody cannot be based on an
unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. Most of the witnesses are shown to be official witnesses and the
release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation. It is
undisputed that the Petitioner has got permanent abode, there is no possibility
of fleeing from justice. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial
custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and
the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further
1
2023 Law Suit(SC) 859
4
pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and
conditions mentioned in this order.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner/A.3, on the following conditions:
i. The Petitioner/A.3 shall be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act–
cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
ii. On release, the Petitioner shall appear before the Station
House Officer, concerned, once in a week, i.e., on every
Sunday, in between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. for a period of
two (02) months.
iii. The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten
the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt
shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses
and shall not tamper evidence and shall co-operate with the
investigation.
iv. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall scrupulously comply
with the above conditions and breach of any of the above
conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty
to move an application for cancellation of the bail. However,
nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Dt. 20.01.2025
MH
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 276/2025
Dt. 20.01.2025
MH
[ad_1]
Source link