Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 & 439 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' in short), seeking regular bail, by the petitioner/Accused No. 8 in Crime No. 770 of 2022 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 21(b), 22(b) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 CNDPS Act' in short).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.06.2022 at 20.00 hours, on credible information, the Inspector of Police, along with staff and mediators, rushed to Y-junction, Old Karnavanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, apprehended A2, who is standing on the road suspiciously and seized 63 LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) blots from his possession and he revealed that he got the said LSD blots from one unknown person, who got acquaintance with him through instagram. He told that usually he collects LSD blots through post and sends money to his UPI ID. Earlier on 27.05.2022, he booked 80 LSD blots and received them through post and out of the said blots 16 were given to Tarun, Ananth and Srinu and he used one blot.

During investigation, on 18.07.2022, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, arrested A8 and on his arrest A8 confessed that he is addicted to consume Ganja with his friends. Later they addicted to take LSD blots. As he did not have enough money to reach his bad vices, he decided to earn money by way of selling LSD blots and he explored youtube and other online resources and started doing business by using hidden browser namely 'Top Brower'. Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner and others.

3. Heard Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds, contended that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. It is stated that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and so, Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act are not applicable. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and he is languishing in jail since 18.07.2022. It is stated that the petitioner was implicated in the present Crime based on the confession statement of A2. Further, it is stated that A3, against whom similar allegations are attributed, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.P. No. 5924 of 2022, vide order dated 11.08.2022, which is placed on record and as such, prayed to consider this application.

5. On the other hand learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application and contended that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and hence, no indulgence of this Court can be shown on the petitioner. It is also contended that though the petitioner was shown as Accused No. 8, basing on the confession statement of A2, he is alleged to be the main culprit. Further, it is contended that, investigation is still pending and if he is enlarged on bail, he may not co-operate with the investigation and may influence the witnesses and hence, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

6. On perusal of the material available on record and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsel prima facie it is evident that the petitioner was implicated in the present crime based on the confession statement of A2.

In Bullu Das Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 130, [LQ/SC/1998/1065] while dealing with the confessional statements made by the accused persons before a police officer, the Supreme Court held as under:

"7. The confessional statement, Ex. 5, stated to have been made by the appellant was before the police officer in charge of the Godda Town Police Station where the offence was registered in respect of the murder of Kusum Devi. The FIR was registered at the police station on 8-8-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. On 9-8-1995, it was after the appellant was arrested and brought before Rakesh Kumar that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Surprisingly, no objection was taken by the defence for admitting it in evidence. The trial court also did not consider whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not. The High Court has also not considered this aspect. The confessional statement was clearly inadmissible as it was made by an accused before a police officer after the investigation had started."

Even in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu the Apex Court held any confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, is inadmissible in trial under the said Act.

7. In view of the submission of both the learned counsel and as Accused No. 3, against whom similar allegations were made, was granted anticipatory bail and taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra, this Court is inclined to consider this bail application, however by duly taking the apprehensions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor into consideration, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka at Visakhapatnam;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, once in a week i.e. on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet; and

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt of influencing the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation.

Further, the petitioner shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail.

It is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law and the findings in this order be construed as expression of opinion only for the limited purpose of considering the bail in the above crime and shall not have any bearing in any other proceedings.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.