Allowed

Seeram Aakash v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jan 2025CRLP/276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by an accused under the NDPS Act. Relying on a prior order granting bail to an accomplice apprehended with similar contraband, the Court observed the petitioner stands in a better footing. It held that continued preventive custody is unsustainable given completed investigations and lack of evidence regarding tampering threats, granting bail subject to s

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions of weekly appearance and non-contact with witnesses.

Seeram Aakash Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT~OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE -

¶2

:PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINALPETITION NO: 276OF2025 ~

¶4

Between :

¶5

seeram Aakash, s/o. Raju @ Shiram Raju, aged about 21 Years, Door No.I4-15-284, Eguvapeta, Bheemunipatnam, visakhapatnam presently Resid,'ng at panja Junction, Town Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam.

¶6

Petitioner/Accused-3

¶7

AND

¶8

The State ofAndhra pradesh, Rep. by its public prosecutor, Hl-gh Court of Judicature of Andhra pradesh At AmaravatI-.

¶9

Respondent/complaI-nant ~_

¶10

petl'tion under sectl-on 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, [New Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, 2023] l's filed praying that l'n the circumstances stated l'n the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the crjmI'nal Petition, the HI-gh court may be pleased to release the petitI'Oner/Accused-3 on ba" in cr.No. 194/2024 under section 20(b)(ii)(c),25r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act 1985 on the fl'le of the I Town police Stall-on, vI-Sakhapatnam Cl'ty Dated o9-09-2024. r

¶11

The petition coming on for hearl'ng, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds fl'Ied in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Advocate for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent, the court made the following

¶12

¶13

I+

¶14

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶15

This Criminal Petition under sections 480 & 483 of Bharatiya Nagarl'k Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short lB.N.N.S.I), 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.

¶16

The above said crime was registered agaI'nSt the Petitioner/ A.3 herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c), 25 r/w 8(Q) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short lthe NDPS Actl).

¶17

The Prosecution's case, in brl'ef, l's that, on o9.09.2024, on receiving credible information, the sl 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 trl'ed 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 thel'r 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 regl'stered case against the present petitioner/A.3.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.3, submits that this court has Previously granted baI®l 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.

¶19

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the contraband I-nVOIVed constitutes a commercial quantity. He further states that the petitioner/A.3, has two criminal antecedents.

¶20

6, I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissl®ons on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions ral-sed by learned counsel need not be reproduced.

¶21

¶22

considering the submis.sions made and after perusal of the material on record, more particularly the-J orders I'n Crl.P.No.7337 of 2024 dated 23.ll.2024, it is evident that this court had granted ba" to A.1 due to noncompliance wl'th sectl'on 52-A of the NDPS Act, relying on the judgment jn s,-mran/-,'f singh v. sfafe of pun/-abl who was apprehended wl-th contraband. B is not the prosecution's case that contraband was seI'Zed from the possession of A.3. Given that thl's coun has already granted ba" to A.1, who was apprehended with contraband, l't I'S Observed that the present petitI'Oner/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 jnvestI'gatjon has been completed.

¶23

As seen from the record, there l's no material to show that the grant of ba" to the petl-tioner would defeat the ends of justice. Noth,'ng on the record suggests that the Accused wi" II-kely comml't an offence I'f released on bail.

¶24

At th,'s stage, the allegations against the petI-tiOner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a consI-derable amount of time. Ba" serves the purpose of allowI'ng an accused to remaln free unt" hls gullt or innocence I-S determined. lt is settled law that mere apprehensl'on that the accused would tamper with the prosecution evidence or I-ntjmidate the wl'tnesses cannot be a ground to refuse ba" unless the prosecution shows that the Accused tried for such tampering/intimjdatjon.

¶25

10| The petitl-oner's contl-nued preventive custody cannot be based on an

¶26

unsubstantI'ated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Most of the wI'tneSSeS are shown to be official wl'tnesses and the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investI'gatl-on. lt is undlsputed that the petitioner has got permanent abode, there is no possib,'lty of fleeing from justice. Given the penal provisI-OnS l'nVOked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors pecull-ar to thl's case, there would be no justjfiabl'lI'ty further

¶27

1 2023 Law Suit(sc) 859

¶28

I-

¶29

pre-trial incarceration at this. stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

¶30

ll. ln 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:

¶31

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 ActGum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

iv. lt 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.

¶35