Vissarapu Lingeswarao Eissarapu ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7290 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7290 AP
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vissarapu Lingeswarao Eissarapu ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 September, 2022

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

      CRIMINAL PETITION No.7373 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of

the Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking

pre-arrest bail, by the petitioners/Accused in Crime

No.218 of 2022 of Kasimkota Police Station,

Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 read with 8(c)

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 ('NDPS Act' in short).

2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on

04.07.2022 at about 00-30 hours, on receipt of credible

information, the Head Constable of Kasimkota Police

Station along with his staff and mediators reached near

Srinivasa Agencies (Fish bunk), Anakapalli to

Yelamanchili Route, Kasimkota Village outskirts and

found A.1 to A.3 with two bags on a KTM 250 Duke Motor

Cycle bearing Reg.No.39 KK 2634. On suspicion, they

searched the bags and found three Ganja packets each.

Then the police arrested A.1 to A.3 and seized total 12

Kgs. of Ganja from their possession under cover of a

mediators report. Hence, the above crime was registered

against the petitioner and others.

3) Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar

Naidana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in

elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds,

contended that basing on the confessional statement of

co-accused No.4, the petitioner is apprehending arrest in

the hands of police in the present crime. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this

Court to the mediators' report, which is placed on record,

wherein A.4 has referred the name of the petitioner.

Learned counsel further contended that even according

to the prosecution, the alleged contraband is less than

commercial quantity, which is intermediate quantity. The

petitioner never involved in the crime. In the event, if the

petitioner is arrested basing on the confession statement

of co-accused, which weak piece of evidence of, the

petitioner will sustain hardship. He further submitted

that, the petitioner would cooperate with the

investigation and he is ready to abide any conditions

imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant pre-

arrest bail to the petitioner.

5) On the other hand, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor contended that, though the confession

statement is weak piece of evidence cannot be

considered at this juncture and though there are no

previous criminal antecedents against the petitioner, in

the event, if the petitioner is released on pre-arrest bail,

he may not cooperate with the investigation, as such,

prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

        6)     Perused the record.

        7)     As contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, on perusal of the mediators report, it shows

that A.4 has confessed the petitioner's name and as

such, there is every force in saying that the petitioner is

apprehending arrest in the present case.

8) In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar 1 , while

dealing with the confessional statements made by the

accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme

Court held as under:

"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."

(1998) 8 SCC 130

9) Even in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu 2,

the Apex Court held that any confession recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible in trial under

the said Act.

10) Taking the facts and circumstances of the

case into consideration and that the contraband involved

in this case is less than commercial quantity and as there

are no previous criminal antecedents against the

petitioner and as the petitioner is shown as accused only

basing on the confession of arrested accused by taking

the relied judgments into consideration, this Court is

inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner,

however, the apprehension of the learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor is taken care of by imposing

the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.218 of 2022 of Kasimkota Police Station,

2020 SCC online SC 882

Visakhapatnam District, on his executing self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kasimkota Police Station, Visakhapatnam District;

(ii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Kasimkota Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet; and

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer whenever required by them to facilitate proper investigation in this case.

Further, the petitioners shall scrupulously comply

with the above conditions and in case of infraction of the

same the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate

application for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any

manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the

investigating agency from further investigation as per law

and the finding in this order be construed as expression

of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering bail

in the above Criminal Petition and shall not have any

bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.