Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Kusangi Mathya Kondababu @Janu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7468 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arrabolu Sai Naveen
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
The court highlighted that confessional statements are inadmissible for bail decisions and emphasized the need for stringent conditions when granting bail.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 437 and 439 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bail petition filed for enlargement on bail for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Court emphasizes the conditions for bail including personal bond, regular reporting to the authorities, and prohibition against further offenses. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 25 - Confessional statements of accused are inadmissible unless compliant with relevant provisions, influencing the consideration of bail applications. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner accused has been in judicial custody for 82 days, accused of illegal possession of commercial quantity of ganja based on a police raid, asserting wrongful implication.
Findings of Court:
The court holds that continued incarceration does not serve justice, allowing bail under stringent conditions to balance justice interests.
Issues: The key issue was the weight of evidence against the petitioner in light of judicial custody duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relates the length of custody with considerations for bail, especially where trial timelines are indefinite, and emphasizes the illegal nature of confessions in such proceedings.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial custody duration impacts bail considerations. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for the petitioner's innocence and family hardship. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's concluding decision allowing bail with conditions. (Para 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
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.121 of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPSAct’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2023 at about 12:30 hours, on receipt of credible information regarding the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maharanipeta Police Station, along with his staff, secured the presence of mediators, rushed to Sea Pearl Beach Road, Maharanipeta, and conducted a raid. The Sub-Inspector of Police apprehended Accused No.1 and found in his possession 1.100 kg of liquid ganja, which was purchased by his friend. Accused No.2, for selling at high rates for wrongful gain. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody, the contraband was seized under a cover of mediators’ report, and he was arrested.
3. Mr. Arrabolu Sai Naveen, 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 continued 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, 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 and submitting that the investigation is completed, charge sheet also filed in this Case, and 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 petitioner has been languishing in jail since 17.05.2025 onwards. Nearly for the past 82 days, he has been in judicial custody. Accused No.1 was granted bail by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was shown as an accused in this case based on the confession of Accused No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner/Accused No.2 is a cultivator of ganja. The contraband involved in this case is 1.100 Kg of liquid ganja. Of course, 1.100 Kg of liquid ganja is a commercial quantity. In view of the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and it takes indefinite time for the learned Trial Court to take up the matter for trial, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody till such time would not serve any justice. If certain conditions are imposed on the petitioner while enlarging him on bail, the ends of justice would be met.
7. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ^ at Para Nos.27 and 53 (iv) it is held as under:
27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a prima facie case of political bias or mala fides but that by itself is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materials on record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts should keep one thing in mind, more particularly, while considering the plea of anticipatory bail that when two groups of rival pol
