Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13578
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Konta Lakshman Rao @ Lakshman – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7759 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri K.K.Komalan
For the Respondents: Ms.P.Akhila Naidu
Defendant's right to bail granted after 280 days in custody, based on ongoing investigation status and no record of previous offenses.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 20 (b) and 8 (c) - Bail application - A petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. for granting bail to Accused No.2 on the basis of his plea of being falsely implicated and the length of detention. - The petitioner has been in custody for 280 days and there is no adverse antecedent against him. - The court considers the ongoing investigation and the petitioner's compliance with future conditions. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8)
(B) Rights of accused during investigation - The duration of detention and the rights to bail when the investigation exceeds specified time frames are discussed. - Emphasis is placed on adherence to legal rights provided under the NDPS Act. (Paras 5, 7, and 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was involved in a narcotics case, accused of possessing and transporting a significant quantity of ganja, and was arrested based on confessions from co-accused. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued for bail based on family hardships due to his detention.
Findings of Court:
Given no antecedents against the petitioner and the duration of custody, the court decided to grant bail with conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the indictments amidst ongoing investigations and conditions thereof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled in favor of granting bail due to lack of adverse antecedents and rights under the NDPS Act regarding extended detention without charge sheet filing.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail granted due to lengthy custody without adverse record. (Para 1 , 9) |
| 2. petitioner's claim of false implication and family hardship. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. opposition to bail by prosecution based on ongoing investigation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's consideration of rights under the ndps act regarding extended investigation. (Para 7 , 8) |
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 n ^ ‘’'1
2 >
Crl.P.No.7759 of2025 Dated 19.08.2025
480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.1091 of 2020 of Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (i), 20 (b)(ii)(C) 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 27.10.2020, at about 12.00 hours, on receipt of credible informat'on about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chodavaram Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Kothuru Junction Chodavaram Village and Mandal, and conducted vehicle checking. The police noticed three persons, who, on seeing the police, they tried to escape. The police apprehended two of them and found 200 kgs of Ganja, and arrested accused No.1. The present petitioner was shown as accused No.2 based on the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 3.
3. Sri K.K.Komalan, 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 petitioneris the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere Crl.P.No.7759of2025 Dated 19.08.2025 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. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.2 was indulged in possession and transportation of 200.00 kgs of ganja. Although it is a commercial quantity, the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 29.10.2024. Nearly for the past 280 days he has been in judicial custody. Accused Nos.1 and 3 gave statements against the petitioner. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is a permanent resident of Booruguveedhi Village Lingeti Panchayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, ASR District. Against accused Nos.1 and 3 charge sheet was filed, while the petitioner was shown as absconding at the time of filing of charge sheet. Now another charge sheet has to be filed against the petitioner. The material portion of the investigation is completed. All the witnesses of the prosecution are official witnesses. Hence, the question '%-jm Crl.P.No.7759 of2025 Dated19.08.2025 of the petitioner influencing or threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation may not arise.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedent against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and a petition for seeking extension of remand of the petitioner, but it was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
7. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not
