APHC010605502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11696/2025 Between:

PATAKAMSETTI SANKAR, R/O 4-89/1, RAJUCHEERUVUI, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

RAMINENI SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.107 of 2025 of Maharanipeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. As seen from the record, the alleged recovery took place in the city of Visakhapatnam, where a sufficient number of Gazetted Officers are available. The alleged time of the offence is 30.07.2025 at 12:00 noon, i.e., in broad daylight. There is no explanation in the mediators’ report as to why the search or the preparation of the mediators’ report was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. There is no dearth of Gazetted Officers in Visakhapatnam District. The averments in the mediators’ report consist entirely of confessional statements made by the accused before police officers, which are hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. 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 Pradesh¹, at Para No.53 (iv) it is held as under:

53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges:

(iv) Where such police statement of an accused is confessional statement, the rigour of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its vigour. A confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively.

In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section

2025 SCC Online SC 1157

30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-

accused.”

5. The alleged mediators are ward women police personnel, who belong to the Police Department. The search was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. There is a reference in the mediators’ report that the accused informed the police that they need not be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, and to that extent, consent was obtained by the police from the accused. Indeed, 1.5 kg of liquid ganja was found in the possession of Accused No.3, but not in the possession of the Petitioner/Accused No.4. Except for the confession of the co accused, no substantial material is available. So far, five witnesses have b‑een examined. They are all material and official witnesses. A substantial portion of the investigation is completed with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner was arrested and remanded on 31.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 127 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Pedurthi, Visakhapatnam. He has got fixed abode. If he is enlarged on