Continued Preventive Custody Can’t Be Based On Unsubstantiated Suspicion Of Tampering Of Evidence Or Influencing Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail To NDPS Accused
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while granting bail to an Accused in a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’), has observed that continued preventive custody of a person cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
The Bench of Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao held “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 the investigation. It is not in dispute that the Petition 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.”
Advocate M Kuladeepika for the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor appeared for the Respondent.
A criminal petition was filed by the Accused under Sections 480 and 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in a case for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS.
It was the case of the Prosecution that the accused was involved in the illicit transportation of 88 kgs of ganja. Per contra, the Counsel for the Accused submitted that he was falsely implicated in the case. The Accused was in judicial custody since February 2024 and he made a confession to the Police based on which, the police obtained a P.T. Warrant and subsequently remanded him to custody.
“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 Court said.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the Accused and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Pangi Chantibabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate M Kuladeepika
Respondent: Public Prosecutor
