Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13081
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
K ETHAVARAM BENNIBABU ALIAS KAYYAM BENNIBABU ALIASBENNI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8260/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SIVANANDA VADAPALLI
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Bail may be granted under stringent conditions even during active investigations, balancing the rights of the accused and procedural justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 437 and 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bail application - The petitioner seeks bail in connection with cases under NDPS Act - Accused was in custody for 110 days with ongoing investigation - Bail granted subject to stringent conditions to ensure presence in court and prevent obstruction of investigation. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7)
(B) Bail considerations - The court considers the implications of prolonged custody against the backdrop of investigation completeness, potential for the petitioner to abscond, and the imposition of conditions to secure further cooperation. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of facilitating illegal ganja supply, resulting in arrests during police operations and subsequent investigations.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to release on bail after substantial time in custody, with conditions attached for compliance and presence during ongoing investigations.
Issues: Whether the accused can be released on bail considering ongoing investigations and the need for stringent conditions to ensure compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscores the necessity for proportionate measures that balance the rights of the accused against the need for effective investigation and assurance of appearance in court.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on the accused and context of the alleged offence. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on custody duration and implications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditions for bail decided by the court. (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion and order regarding the petition. (Para 8) |
ORDER
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.3 on bail in Cr.No.59 of 2025 of Butchiyyapeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.2025 at about 14.00 hours, on receipt of credible information regarding the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Butchiyyapeta Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Aithampudi Village Junction and apprehended Accused Nos.1 and 2. From the confessional statements of both the accused, it was revealed that Accused No.3, who is currently absconding, had arranged for the supply of liquid ganja, which was sold to Accused Nos.1 and 2. On 05.05.2025, Accused Nos.1 and 2 had taken 2.490 kgs of liquid ganja from Accused No.3 and, while proceeding towards Ravikamatham via Butchiyyapeta Village on the motorcycle of Accused No.1, they were apprehended by the police in the presence of mediators. Subsequently, the police seized 2.490 kgs of liquid ganja, a Honda Shine motorcycle, and mobile phones. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3. Sri Vadapalli Sivananda, 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 petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
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. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.3 was allegedly indulged in dealing with 2.490 kgs of liquid ganja. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 06.05.2025. Nearly for the past 110 days he has been in judicial custody. Based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in this case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is one IPC case registered against the petitioner. Charge sheet has already been filed in this case. It takes considerable length of time for the learned Trial Court to take up the trial and dispose of the case. Keeping the petitioner in judicial custody till such time would not serve any purpose, and if certain stringent conditions are imposed for securing his presence before the learned Trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, completion of the inve
