The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that mere apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses is not sufficient to deny bail unless there is concrete evidence of such actions by the accused.
Further, the High Court Bench ruled that continued preventive custody cannot be justified based solely on unsubstantiated suspicions.
Brief Facts
This case concerns a criminal petition filed by accused Pangi Chantibabu seeking regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), erstwhile Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition relates to Cr. No.149 of 2023, registered at Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District. The petitioner faced charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case arose from an incident on November 30, 2023, when 88 kgs of ganja were seized from a juvenile at Ninugondu Junction, along with an auto rickshaw and a scooter. The petitioner was implicated in the transportation of this contraband.
Issues
- Whether mere apprehension of potential tampering with evidence or witness intimidation could justify denying bail
- Whether continued preventive custody could be sustained based solely on unsubstantiated suspicions
Contentions of Petitioner/Accused
In this case the Petitioner, identified as Accused No. 7, made claims of innocence and false implication in the alleged crime. The Petitioner argued that his name was not included as an accused in the initial FIR. The arrest followed the execution of a PT warrant, filed on 17.02.2024 and executed on 27.02.2024, and since then, the Petitioner has been in custody. A previous bail application was denied by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. It was contended before the High Court that the confession statement of a co-accused, used against the Petitioner, is inadmissible in evidence. The Petitioner’s counsel also drew attention to a precedent, where bail was granted to a similarly situated co-accused under comparable circumstances, requesting that the Petitioner be afforded similar consideration for bail.
Contentions of Respondent/Complainant
Per contra, the Ld. APP vehemently opposed the Petitioner’s bail application. They argued that the contraband involved is of substantial commercial quantity, a factor deemed significant in justifying the denial of bail. However, the prosecution did not allege that any contraband was directly seized from the Petitioner, nor did they produce any additional evidence since the Petitioner’s remand to demonstrate further involvement in the alleged offense.
Observations of the Court
The Court’s reasoning hinged on two key issues. First, it made clear that the refusal of bail could not be based solely on the apprehension that the accused might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Such concerns must be supported by tangible evidence showing that the accused has actually attempted to interfere with the legal process. Second, the Court noted that continued preventive custody was not justifiable based on mere unsubstantiated suspicions. Concrete material was required to demonstrate that the accused was involved in or likely to engage in activities that would compromise the investigation or trial. In respect of the above, the court observed that “At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioner are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is determined. It is 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 Petitioner’s continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Most of the witnesses are shown to be official witnesses and the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has got permanent abode, there is no possibility of fleeing from justice. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the refusal of bail based solely on fears of evidence tampering or witness intimidation was not justified without concrete evidence. The Court determined that continued preventive custody was not warranted based on unsubstantiated suspicions. As a condition for bail, the petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, report to the Investigating Officer weekly and avoid any contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Case Title: Pangi Chantibabu vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Coram: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 4647/2024
Date: 12th August, 2024
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
