Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ijac Rakesh Alias Raaky vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
■fr/^
X'
>?r'
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, %
X'fc',
Cx
'i, ^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ';^v
v'.
rPRESENT: x
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9862 OF 2025
Between:
Sri Ijac Rakesh @ Raaky, S/o. Ijac, aged about 27 years, SC (Adi
Dravida), Vespardi, Chennai, Tamilnadu State, Presently R/o. Malayakotci
Village, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District
...Petitioner/Accused No 6
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High court of
Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
.. .Respondent/Complainaijit
Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that
in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal
Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Crime No. 274/2025, of Naidupet Police Station, SPSR Nellore District;
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and
the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the
arguments of Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, Advocate for the Petitioner and
Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following;
2
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 6 on bail in crime No. 274 of 2024 of Naidupet Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPSAct'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION!
2. On 26-08-2025 at about 11.30 hours at the forest of Sreenivasapuram, Naidupet Mandal, accused Nos. 1 to 6 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 11.5 K.Gs. of Ganja.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
3. Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The.petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law.
The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the 3 allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:
5. Per contra, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously harpper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperationfrom the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the cours^ of i justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the I petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, jit is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learr^ed counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is;
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail? 4 ANALYSIS:
8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 6 is that he along with other accused had allegedly indulged in dealing with 11.5 K.Gs. of Ganja. It ISi:
not a commercial quantity. The petitioner is permanent resident of Malayakota Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. He has got fixed abode. The petitioner was arrested on 26-08-2025. He has been in judiciai custody for the past 32 days. There no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. Ail the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, chances of the petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise.
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions;
(i) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet;
(ii) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court;
(iii) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future;
5
(iv) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation . by the investigating officer as and when required; (V) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (Vi) The petitioner-accused No. 6 shall surrender his passport.
if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.
10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.
SOI- U. SF^IDEVI //TRUE COPY// For, ASSISTANT^P^STRAR Action oFhcER To,
1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet.
2. The Superintendent, Nellore, Central Prison.
3. The Station House Officer, Naidupet Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.
4. One CC to Sri. Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT]
6. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLRJ DATED:26/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9862 of 2025 ALLOWED 7 0 m v\^