Chala Venkata Reddy vs The State Of A.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 4023 AP

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5414 OF 2021

ORDER:-

         This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest

bail to the petitioner/A3 in the event of his arrest in connection

with Crime No. 163 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District registered for the

offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS

Act").


2.       The case of prosecution is that on 02.07.2021 at about

12:30     P.M.    the   officials   of   Special   Enforcement   Bureau,

Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District conducted raid in the shed

constructed in agricultural land belonging to the petitioner and

found certain raw material meant for manufacture of drug and to

adulterate the toddy with diazepam. The said material was seized

and basing on the confession of A1 who was present there, the

petitioner is arrayed as A3 in the present crime.


3.       Heard Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant            Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only

allegation against petitioner is that watchman of the premises has

confessed before Police that A1 used to take the help of petitioner

for preparation of contraband. He submits that only basing on the

confession of co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in

this case, which is contrary to law and the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu1

wherein it was held that confession before Police Officer in NDPS

cases is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, hence

inadmissible and there cannot be any conviction. He submits that

initially a crime was registered in the State of Telangana for the

very same offence in which neither the watchman nor the

petitioner was shown as accused, but subsequently basing on said

crime, when Police of Andhra Pradesh State have visited the site

they found certain material lying there and only basing on the

confession of the watchman, petitioner is implicated as an

accused. He further submits that there is nothing to connect the

petitioner with the alleged crime and nothing has been seized from

his possession. He submits that while granting bail, the Court has

to take into consideration as to whether there is prima facie or

reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed

offence, nature and gravity of the accusation, the likelihood of

absconding, tampering with the evidence and hampering with

investigation process. He submits that except the statement of the

watchman even the investigation done so far does not reveal the

involvement of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a

2021 SCC Online SC 882 (crl.A.152 of 2013)

farmer and he has been falsely implicated in this crime. Hence, the

petitioner's case may be considered for grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that it is fact that initially crime was registered in the

State of Telangana and as premises is situated in a village of

Andhra Pradesh, Police visited the place and watchman of the

premises has confessed that A1 used to take the help of petitioner

for preparation of contraband. He submits that investigation is

pending. However, he does not deny the fact that in the

investigation so far done, nothing has been put forth to connect

the petitioner with the alleged crime. He submits that they have to

collect further information such as call data records and other

material from Hyderabad to find out the involvement of the

petitioner. Hence, he opposed the bail petition.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. As per

the arguments advanced by both the parties, now the fact remains

is that so far there is no material to connect the petitioner with the

alleged offence except the confession made by watchman of the

premises i.e. co-accused. In view of the facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The

petitioner/A3 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in

connection with Crime No. 163 of 2021 of Special Enforcement

Bureau Station, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District on condition

of executing self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand

only) with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the

Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. However, during the course

of investigation, if any material is found against the petitioner,

which connects him with the alleged crime, Prosecution is at

liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date :08.10.2021 IKN

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

allowed

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5414 of 2021

08.10.2021r

IKN