Dismissed¶30

Mohammad Farman @ Pappu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2025CRLP/2077/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction); Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; Criminal Petition No.2077 of 2025 decided 17.03.2025; regular bail sought under Ss.480 & 483 BNSS 2023 by A1-A4 and A7-A9 in Crime No.6/2025 of Chodavaram Police Station, Anakapalle District; offences under NDPS Act Ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c); 270 kgs ganja seized from A5/A6 on 09.01.2025; petitioners arrested on co-accused confession; commercial/huge quantity and pending investigation held ground for refusal of bail; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail declined: the seized contraband is commercial quantity and the investigation is pending, hence the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. ¶29

Mohammad Farman @ Pappu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010097492025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2077/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mohammad Farman @ Pappu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶15

1.PUVVALA SRINIVASA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

The Criminal Petition, u/Sec.480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A1 to A4 and A7 to A9 to grant regular bail in connection with Crime No.6/2025 of Chodavaram Police Station, Anakapalle District.

¶20

¶21

A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable u/Sec.20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act.

¶22

The case of the prosecution in nut shell is as follows:

¶23

On 09.01.2025 at about 1.00 pm, on receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chodavaram Police Station, along with staff and mediators conducted vehicle checking at opposite to police station, Chodavaram. They noticed one tractor coming in suspicious circumstances carrying two persons. On seeing the police, said two persons tried to escape by stopping the tractor. Then police apprehended them and on enquiry, they disclosed their identity particulars as that of A5 and A6 and police found 270 kgs of ganja in their possession. They were arrested, seized the contraband and vehicles and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. They confessed the involvement of A1 to A4 and A7 to A9 i.e. these petitioners in the commission of the offence and these petitioners were arrested on 09.01.2025.

¶24

Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/A5 and A6 and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been in judicial custody from 09.01.2025 and most of the

¶26

¶27

investigation completed and these petitioners were arrested basing on the confession of other accused and nothing has been seized from these petitioners and prays to allow the criminal petition.

¶28

Contra to the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition stating that inventory is pending in this matter and the seized contraband is huge quantity and prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶29

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record shows that, as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that the seized contraband is commercial quantity and as the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage, as the investigation is going on. Even though the petitioners were arrested basing on the confession of other accused, but the seized contraband is huge quantity, hence this Court is not inclined to grant bail.

¶30