Konakalla Ram Mohan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2025 on credible information, the Drug Inspector, Vijayawada Zone-II along with Vigilance team along with staff conducted inspector on the medical shop of accused and found huge quantity of Tramasure-100, Ultraking Tabs, Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus, Beclam 0.5 mg, Apcolam 0.5 mg, Corex-T Syrup, Tossex Syrup, Tricare-AP Tabs, Restyl 0.5 mg, Trika 0.5 mg and same were selling to the public without doctor prescription. In this connection, a case was registered and investigated.

¶23

Heard. Perused the record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 62 years and is running a medical shop under the name and style of M/s. Bhargava Medical Stores . Even as per the mediators' report, the drug Tramadol was not seized from the petitioner’s medical shop. The basis for the alleged seizure of psychotropic substances appears unclear. The accused statement was recorded before the mediators on

¶25

3

¶26

12.04.2025 at 10:00 hours. As per the mediators' report, 116 grams of psychotropic substances are said to have been seized.

¶27

Learned counsel contends that if the alleged confession made by the petitioner were true, it would have certainly been reflected in the mediators' report. However, there is no mention in the report regarding the seizure of 116 grams of psychotropic substances. Even assuming, without conceding, that the confession attributed to the petitioner during the course of investigation is true, the seizure of 116 grams of psychotropic substances from his shop is still not established through credible documentation.

¶28

Learned counsel further submits that, as per the remand report, there is no mention of Tramadol being seized. Even if Tramadol were to be considered a psychotropic substance, as notified under Serial No.1 of S.O. No. 1762(E), dated 26.04.2018, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the alleged quantity does not fall under the category of commercial quantity .

¶29

The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.03.2025. This Court is of the view that a substantial portion of

¶30

4

¶31

the investigation might have already been completed. Considering that the petitioner is aged about 62 years and that his release would not hamper the ongoing investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail. Upon enquiry, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirmed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It has been submitted that the petitioner has a permanent residence at Avanigadda Village, Krishna District, and there is no credible apprehension of him fleeing from justice. Moreover, most of the witnesses are official witnesses. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner/accused shall be released on 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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, Krishna District.

¶33

(ii) After release, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned investigating officer, on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 1.00 p.m., for a period of three (03) months or till filing the charge sheet, whichever is earlier; and

¶34

5

¶35

(iii) Further, the petitioner is directed not to hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶36