Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Nadigatla Hanumantha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points can be summarized:
The case involves an application for bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) concerning an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 (!) .
The petitioner, accused A4, was arrested in connection with a large quantity of Ganja (560 Kgs.) recovered from a vehicle; however, no contraband or material linking the petitioner to the offence was recovered from him (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case primarily relies on the confession of a co-accused, which the court finds insufficient as admissible evidence to justify continued detention (!) .
The court observed that the absence of admissible evidence warrants the release of the petitioner on bail to ensure his right to defend himself adequately (!) (!) .
The court granted bail to the petitioner upon executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, and imposed conditions such as periodic appearance and cooperation with the trial (!) .
The court emphasized that continued detention without corroborative evidence is unwarranted, especially when the investigation has not yielded any evidence against the petitioner (!) (!) .
All pending interlocutory applications were ordered to be closed, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the trial process and investigation as required (!) .
These points reflect the court's reasoning that absence of admissible evidence and the need for liberty to prepare a defense justify granting bail in this case.
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
This criminal petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., is filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner herein/A4 on bail in Crime No.148 of 2022 of Nakkapalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Heard Sri Mandali Chiranjeevi Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Perused the record.
4. On hearing learned Counsel on both sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that on 11.06.2024 a vehicle was intercepted and a huge quantity of 560 Kgs., of Ganja was recovered and A1 was arrested and was remanded to the judicial custody. The present petitioner is A4. On 27.08.2024, he was arrested and was remanded to the judicial custody. As remand report discloses no part of the contraband was recovered or any material connecting the petitioner to the contraband was recovered from A4. Despite the fact that there elapsed four months, the prosecution is unable to show one single admissible piece of evidence pointing out the guilt of the petitioner herein. The State opposed the bail application only
Bail should be granted in the absence of admissible evidence against the accused, emphasizing the necessity for liberty to prepare for trial.
The completion of the investigation and the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
Court grants bail considering prolonged custody, absence of witness tampering, and ongoing trial delays.
The prolonged detention of accused necessitated bail despite pending investigations, with conditions imposed to ensure compliance with judicial proceedings.
Confessional statements made to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, influencing bail decisions where reasonable doubt of guilt exists.
The court has the discretion to grant bail, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, including the length of detention and the nature of the alleged offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
