MylapaIIi Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 480, 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 437, 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following I conditions: EEii i. The petitioner herein shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty` thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to…
Judgment
Cause title
Divalamma Veedhl', Matchyalosam, Kalingapatnam, Srikakulam District, Presently residing at D.No.21-42-33, Panja Junction, Near Town Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam DistrI'Ct, A.P. ...Petitioner
/Accused No.1 f# AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent
/Complainant / Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be Pleased tO enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.33/2025 of I Town P.S., Visakhapatnam District. Counsel forthe petitioner : sri GoIIapalli Maheswara Rao f; Counsel forthe Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor. , The Court made the following
ORDER:
APHCO10189252025 E#E ffiTfE. lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3369] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4041/2025 Between : MylapaIIi Ashok Kumar, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Coun'se] for the Respondent/comp[ainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the followin Order: This Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/Al seeking regular bail in Crime No.33 of 2025 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Comissionerate registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21.02.2025, on receipt of credible informatI'On about illegal transportation of ganja, the Sub- lnspector of police along with his staff and mediators rushed to llth Jelly Fishing Harbour, I Town area, Visakhapatnam City and caught the accused in possession of 2 Kgs of Ganja. The contraband along with other material was seized under the cover of mediators report. \ Eili:= . . .
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pet'ltioner has been in judicial custody from 21.02.2025 and prays this Court to grant bail to the petitioner herein.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that investigation in the present crime is not completed.
Heard. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband alleged to be seized from the possession of accused is` 2 Kgs of ganja, which is not of commercial quantity. lt is submitted'that the petitioner had permanent abode and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the justice. lt is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the witnesses are shown to be official witnesses and the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation and tampering of witnesses. lt is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that petitioner herein has involved in six other crimes.
ln view of the aforesaid'facts and circumstances of the case and since the contraband involved in the present crime is not a commercial quantity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein.
Operative part
ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following I conditions: EEii i. The petitioner herein shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty` thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I AddI'tiOnal District & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. ii. On release, the petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, twice in a week i.e., on every wednesday and Sunday between 10.00 AM and 01.00 PM.I for a period of four (4) months. iii. The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required and that he shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution witnesses. ScI,-K. J. reAJA BABU ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Tol
1. The I Additional District & Session Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act: Visakhapatnam.
2. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commisisonera{e.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
4. One CC to Sri GoIIapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] .
6. One spare copy CVSS HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 25/04/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.4041 of 2025 ALLOWED ...>1 lot,.... .-I _. ,:ap r`
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed with the following
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 480, 483; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 437, 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Apr 2025. The bench was T MALLIKARJUNA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.