The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held 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.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that credible information was received regarding the illegal transportation of Ganja. Then, the police along with his staff conducted vehicle checking, and they found one vehicle, the Police apprehended A.2 and A.3, who disclosed that they were transporting the Ganja at the instructions of A.1. Upon search, the Ganja was recovered and seized. The case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act. The present petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking regular bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was furthermore contended that the major part of the investigation is completed. Also, the Petitioner filed the regular bail before the session court, and the same was dismissed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that even after the statutory period has passed, the Investigating Officer has not finished the investigation and has not been able to file the charge sheet against the Petitioner and other accused. The right to default bail has ripened into an indefensible right, and Petitioner/A.1 can exercise the right to bail by offering to provide sureties.
It was furthermore observed that the allegations against the Petitioners are subject to the trial’s outcome and the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time.
The court noted that the objective of bail is to keep an accused person free until their guilt or innocence is established. It is established law that an accused cannot be denied bail based just on a fear that they may tamper with the prosecution's evidence or threaten witnesses, unless the prosecution can demonstrate that the accused was actually tried for this kind of intimidation or tampering.
Based on these considerations, the court granted bail to the accused.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case title: Immandi Sai Madhu Sudhan @ Madhu V. State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.,: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 857/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: DUGGIRALA SUBASH
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
