I+ I.N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3332 OF 2025 Betwee n : Hiranya Pangl', S/o. Shyam Sundar Pangi, aged about 36 years, R/o. Maruva Village, Similiguda Block, Koraput District, Odisha State. ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Publl'c Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under section 439(1 ) of Cr.P.C and Section 483(1 ) of BNSS, 2023 is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petitl-on, the High Court may be pleased to modI®fy the order passed by the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-Gum-I Addl. Sessl'ons Judge, Vizianagaram in CrI.M.P. No.54/2025 in Cr. No.138/202.4 dated 29.01.2025 by considering the situation of the lf Petitioner/Accused as petitioner/Accused to be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with single surety to the satisfaction of Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-ctlm-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and the surety must be a resI-dent Of the Andhra Pradesh State" instead of petitioner/Accused to be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two local sureties to the satisfaction of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-Gum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, subjeet`to acceptance of sureties only upon POliCe Verification and Permit the petitioner/Accused to deposit the Surety bond amount Of Rs.10,000/_ with single surety instead of Rs.20,000/-with two sureties; The petition coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Adapa Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and public prosecutor for the Respondent; _ _ ------`---` ` The Court made the fOllOWing= ORDER:- This Criminal Petition under Section 483(1) of B.N.S.S., has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking modification of the conditions in the bail order vide CrI.M.P.No.54 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025 on the file Of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for trial Of OffenCeS under NDPS Act, vizianagaram and permit the petitioner to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs.10,000/-with single surety. -a--a \r- I---* _T- .``\. iE! 2 2. The crl'me- was registered in this case against the petitioner/accused herein in Cr.No.138 of 2024 of Makkuva Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Without going into the merits of the case, this criminal petl'tion is filed only seekl'ng modification of conditions in the baI'I orders in Crl.M.P.No.54 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025 on the file of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Vizianagaram. 4. It is subml-tted that despl'te grant of bail by the I AdditI'Onal District & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Vizianagaram in crl.M.P.No.54 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025, petitioner/Accused could not furnish surety bond for Rs.20,000/- with two local sureties for like sum each to the satisfactI-On Of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Vizl'anagaram. He further contends that the petitioner belong to a poor family and the petitioner is the only person to look after his family members by doing coolie work and the petitioner belongs to Odissa State. lt is further submitted that nearly two months time elapsed after granting bail to the a----tp t` GSgCf± \ I ` ii=E, i-_ 3 // petitl'oner and the petl'tioner family members could not comply wI'th the order by furnishing sureties. ln the said facts of the case, petl'tioner request to consider hl's case on humanitarian grounds. 5. Learned counsel relied on a decI.SI'On reported I'n SMWP (crl-mI'naI) No.4/2021 dated 31.01.2023 on the file of the Hon'ble supreme court wherel-n jt is observed that lf,-f the ba,-/ 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/relaxation". 6. [t seems that the court who granted bail to the petitioner I-n this crime has not taken such steps, thereby forced the petitioner to approach this court. There I-S nOthl-ng on record to show that the said submjssions are I-nCOrreCt, as such thl-s court is incll-ned to modl-fy the bail order. 7. Considering the submI-SSiOnS made on behalf of the petI'tjOner, thI-S Court is I'ntends to modI'fy the condl-tl-on of furnl-shjng surety bond for Rs.20,000/- with two local sureties for lI.ke Sum each and dI'reCted the petl-tioner to furnish one surety for the like sum and executl'on of self bond for Rs.10,000/- i. o`J 4 (Rupees ten thousand Only). The remaining conditions imposed against the petitioner/accused shall remain unaltered. sD/- K.SR[NIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FI Tol 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act-Gum-I AddI Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Srikakulam. 3. One CC to Sri. Adapa Sudhakar Rao, A'dvocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 5. One spare copy un ti- I-_.rf . ` HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:03/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3332 of 2025 ALLOWED