Confessional statements made to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, influencing bail decisions where reasonable doubt of guilt exists.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2025, at about 6:30 A.M., on the Devarapalli to Tallada NH-516 Highway, near the Agriculture Market Committee check post, Accused Nos.1 to 5 were transporting ganja illegally for wrongful gain. Accused Nos.1 to 7 had hatched a common plan to procure and transport the ganja to Telangana State and sell it at a higher price. Accused No.2 arranged the ganja, while Accused Nos.1 to 5 transported it as per the instructions of Accused Nos.6 and 7. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were arrested, and 189 packets of ganja contained in 12 bags, weighing 394.795 Kgs, along with crime vehicles i.e., Maruti Swift Dzire car and Tata Intra truck were seized under the cover of a mediators’ report.

3. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 25.04.2025, while the present case was registered showing him as one of the accused on 29.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order of the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025, wherein at Paragraph Nos.8.12 and 8.13, the learned Trial Court observed that Accused No.4 was apprehended one day prior to the registration of the crime. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail on 31.07.2025, and the present petitioner is also standing on the same footing on the principle of parity. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that there is a clear admission by the petitioner in the mediators’ report that he acted as a driver for transporting the commercial quantity of ganja in his own vehicle, and therefore the accusation is well founded. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.5 is that he acted as the driver of the Swift Dzire car in which 394.795 Kgs of ganja was allegedly transported at the behest of the other accused. Indubitably, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were already enlarged on bail by the learned I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, vide order dated 31.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.409 of 2025 in Cr.No.161 of 2025 of J