MERLPO KISHORE, Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Petitions have been filed under Ss. 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 'the BNSS '), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 7 on bail in Crime No.10 of 2026 of Krishnadevipeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 7 herein for the offences punishable under Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C) , 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the NDPS Act ').

(2.) Sri Srinivas Jarugu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the continued incarceration of Accused No.3, who has languished in judicial custody for over 180 days, is wholly unwarranted and violative of the fundamental guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that no overt act, no recovery, no financial nexus, nor any operational role is attributed to the Petitioner/Accused No.3, and the allegation of possession is confined only to 10 kilograms allegedly sought for personal consumption, which does not attract the rigour of "commercial quantity " under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of 'the NDPS Act. ' The prosecution 's case rests solely upon inadmissible police?created confession statements, bereft of corroboration, with no CDRs, forensic extraction, or independent evidence. The Petitioner/Accused No.3, a young husband and father of two minor children, has already suffered grave prejudice, while co?accused similarly situated have been enlarged on bail. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned Counsel urges that the present petition be allowed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the implication of Accused No.7 is a classic case of "guilt by association, " resting solely upon his fraternal relationship with Accused No.3, without any substantive material linking him to the alleged contraband. The Petitioner/Accused No.7, a private employee pursuing distance education, with no antecedents and no recovery from his possession, has been falsely roped in merely for being the brother of Accused No.3. The prosecution record discloses no overt act, no financial transaction, no communication, nor any incriminating circumstance against him, except for inadmissible confession statements. His prolonged detention for over 180 days, despite completion of investigation and examination of witnesses, amounts to unconstitutional preventive detention, impermissible in law. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court, and in view of the absence of prima facie guilt it is urged that the present Criminal Petitions be allowed.