[NDPS Act] Continued Preventive Custody Cannot Be Based On Unsubstantiated Suspicion Of Witness Tampering, Influencing Probe: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, who was arrested on the basis of a confession given by him, without any evidence linking him to the crime.

Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao while passing the order noted that the investigation was complete and the police had not produced any evidence linking the petitioner/accused to the alleged crime except the confession given by him in another crime registered against him.

It was held that the petitioner's continued preventive custody cannot be based on unsubstantiated suspicion of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 

“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.”

The case arises from an incident that occurred in November of 2023, wherein the Police, based on a reliable tip proceeded to inspect a vehicle alleged of illegally transporting Ganja. Upon conducting inspection, it was found that 3 people were in the vehicle, however, two of the accused managed to escape, and a juvenile was caught with 3 gunny bags, carrying 88kg of Ganja.

The petitioner/accused no.7 herein, contended that he was not related to the present crime and a P.T warrant was issued against him based on a confession given by him in another case, unrelated to the present one.

In granting bail, the Bench held:

“As seen from the record, the Prosecution does not allege that the contraband was seized from the Petitioner's possession in the present crime i.e., Cr.No.149 of 2023 of Rolugunta Police Station. Furthermore, the Prosecution has not presented any additional material collected during the Petitioner's judicial custody to demonstrate the Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence. It appears that, apart from the confessional statement purportedly made by the Petitioner, no other independent material has been collected to establish the Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the offence.”

Thus, the petitioner was granted bail, with the imposition of certain conditions.

Crlp 4647 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: M. Kuladeepika

Counsel for respondent: APP

Click Here To Read/Download Order