The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. The court granted bail to the accused against which the case was registered for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act).
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that credible information was received regarding the illicit transportation of ganja and then, the Sub-Inspector of Police, accompanied by his team and mediators, proceeded to conduct vehicle inspections. Thereafter, during vehicle inspection, a juvenile was found with 8 kgs of ganja and two persons managed to escape. Furthermore, the police seized the ganja and registered the case for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act). Therefore, the present criminal petition seeking regular bail is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner had been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was furthermore contended that the confession statement of the co-accused before the investigation officials is inadmissible in evidence; in fact, considering a similarly placed co-accused's case, this Hon'ble Court granted bail with certain conditions.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that other than the confessional statement made by the Petitioner, there exists no other independent material has been collected to establish the Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence.
The court furthermore observed that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Also, it is well-settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the Prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the Prosecution shows that the Accused tried for such tampering/intimidation.
The court noted that the continued preventive custody of the Petitioner cannot be based solely on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
Based on these considerations, the court granted bail to an accused involved in the offence under the NDPS Act.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal petition.
Case Title: Pangi Chantibabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.:Crlp 4647 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: M. Kuladeepika
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
