APHC010534112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10383/2025 Between:

KILLO PRASAD, S/O. SANA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. RAMARAVUPALEM VILLAGE, LOTHUGADDA PANCHAYAT, CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 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.2 on bail in Crime No.30 of 2023 of Chinthapalli Police Station, ASR District, registered against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2 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. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Only based on the confession of other accused he was arraigned as accused in this case. He has got fixed abode. He is ready to abide by any conditions which this Court deems fit for enlarging him on bail. The alleged offence has taken place in the year 2023. The petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 95 days, and it is urged to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the petitioner is the supplier of the commercial quantity of ganja. His complicity in this case has come into light based on the confession of accused No.1. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined and it is urged to dismiss the petition as the petitioner indulged in dealing with commercial quantity of ganja. The statutory period of

180 days is not completed.

4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?”

6. As seen from the record, based on the confession of Accused No.1, the petitioner was shown as Accused No.2 in this case. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner is the supplier of 24.400 Kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.9386 of 2025, vide order dated 18.12.2025, enlarged Accused No.1 on bail. The allegation against Accused No.1 and the allegation against Accused No.2 are different. It is alleged that Accused No.2 is supplying ganja to Accused No.1.

Therefore, the doctrine of parity cannot be drawn in favour of Accused No.2.

7. In this regard, it is relevant to comprehend the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, 1(2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein at paragraph Nos.25 and 26 it is held as under regarding the applicability of the principle of parity:

“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged

offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.