lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI -I tl--_ _ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I . || PRESENT.I i;`l: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO^: 't'\ Between.I CRIMINAL PETITION NO.- 2840 OF 2025 1. Rathod Tukaram, s/o. Laxman, aged about 46 years, R/o. ErrakI-Palll- vl'llage, yenkjmurI' Post, Medak Distrl'ct, Telangana state. \ - \\ 2. Rathod Kamala about 46 years Telangana state. Baj, c/o. pat'ot GopaI, W/o. Rathod Tukaram, aged R/o. Ryakal post, Kondapur, sangareddy District, ...PetI-tl-Oners/Accused No.2, 3 AND The state of Andhra pradesh, Rep by Its Publl'c Prosecutor, High court of Andhra pradesh. ...Respondent petition under sect,Ion 439 (1) of crpc and sec.483 (1) BNSS, praying that jn the cI'rCumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds flled in support of the petition, the Hl'gh court may be pleased to modify the order passed by the Metropolltan sessions Judge-Gum-I AddL Dl'str,'ct & sessions Judge - specl'al Judge for Trl-al of offences under NDPS Act, Vl'sakhapatnam l'n crI.M.P. Nos.159/2025 and 160/2025 in Cr. No.03/2025 dated 18.02.2025 by considering the situatl'on of the petjtl'oners/Accused No2, 3 as llpetitI'Oners/A2 & A3 to be released on ba" on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with sI'ngle surety for a ll'ke sum to the satl'sfaction of MetropolI'tan Sessl'ons Judge-Gum-I AddI. Dl'strl'ct & sessI'OnS Judge - spec,'aI Judge for Trlal of offences under NDPS Act, vlsakhapatnam " l'nstead of l{petltIOners/A2 & A3 to be released on ba" on executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each wl-th two sureties for a like sum each to the satl'sfactI'On Of Addl. Judl'cl'al Magl'strate /// / ;/zzof First Class, Narsipatnang, now Anakapalli District and permit the J'JJJr petitioners/Accused No,2, 3 to deposit the surety bond amount Of Rs.10,000/- each with single surety instead of Rs.50,000/-each with two sureties. counsel for the petitioners : Sri GoIIapaIIi Maheswara Rao counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER This Criminal Petition under Section 483(1)(b) of B.N.S.S., has been filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3, seeking modification Of the conditions 'ln the bail orders vide crl.M.P.No.159/2025(A3) and Crl.M.P.No.160/2025(A2) dated 18.02.2O25 on the file learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam and permit the petitioners to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties instead Of Rs.5O,000/-with two sureties. 2. The above Said Crime Was registered against the Petitioners/A2 and A3 herein and others in cr.No.03/2025 of Nathavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 20(b(ii)(B), 25 r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act,1985. 3. Without going into the merits Of the Case, this Criminal petition is filed only seeking modification Of COnditiOnS in the bail Orders in crl.M.P.No.159/2025 and Crl.M.P.No.160/2025 dated 18.02.2025 on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. fraaEi3E_ 4. lt is submitted that despite grant of bail by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.159/2025 and Crl.M.P.No.160/2025 dated 18.02.2025, petitioners/A2 and A3 could not furnish sureties for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam. He further contends that the petitioners belong to a poor family and the petitioners are the only persons to look after their respective family members by doing coolie work. lt is further submitted that more than one month time elapsed after granting bail to the petitioners and the petitioners family members could not comply with the order by furnishing sureties. ln the said facts of the case, petitioners request to consider their case on humanitarian grounds. 5. Learned counsel relied on a decision reported in SMWP (Criminal) No.4/2021 dated 31.01.2O23 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein -It 'ls observed that -cif the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo-motu take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/relaxat-IOn''. 6. lt seems that the Court who granted bail to the petitioners in this crime has not taken such steps, thereby forced the petitioners to approach this Court. There is nothing on record to show that the said submissions are incorrect, as such this Court is inclined to modify the bail order. 7. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their execution of self bond for Rs.10,OOO/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for like sum each. lt is hereby made clear that the release of the petitioners/A2 and A3 on their - ---T \\ -.\ execution of self bond for Rs 50,000/- (Rupees flfty thousand Only) each Wlth two suret'les for like such each ls only modified The remalning COnditlOnS imposed against the petltioners/A2 and A3 sha" remain unaltered. sD/-G.HELANAIDU ASSISTAN Fo //TRUE COPY// TION GISTRAR OFFICER To} 1 The Me\rOPO"tan SeS=\=n+S_`J^:d^:e===nm±sA==%leOTn=lDD==\T#t& SesSIOn Judge-SpeClal Judge for Trtal Of OffenCeS under NDPS Act visakhapatnam. 2 The AddltlOnal JudlClal MaglStrate Of Flrst Class, NarSIPatnam 3 The Supertntendent, Central PrlsOn, VlsakhaPatnam, VlsakhaPatnam 4 The StatlOn House OffICer, NathaVaram PollCe StatlOn, AnakaPam District. 5 One CC tO Srl GollaPalll MaheSWara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] District. 6 Two CCs tO PubllC Prosecutor (AP) Hlgh Court Of Andhra PradeSh [oUT] 7. One SPare COPY CVSS I, rf| I,`` Jf|| HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED : 25/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2840 of 2025 ALLOWED