\\` \o IN THE HIGH COURT OF AND.HRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNES.DAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOU-SAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO +l` " I.i\ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3825 OF 2025 Between : 1. Kuda Krishnakanth, S/o. Late Paparayudu, aged about 25 years, R/o. Vamugadda Kothuru Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. 2. Burja Thimothi, S/o. Late Dasu Babu, aged about 23 years, R/o. Chavatapadu Village, Chowdupalli Mandal, AIluri Sitharama Raju District. ..IPetitioners/Accused No.1, 2 AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pra'desh.. ...Respondent Petition under Section 437 a 439 of Cr.P.C and 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 Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.55/2025 of IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam District; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds of crimI-hal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the court made the following; €J^ *=` yrfl zzgr"- i ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatI-yaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 2on bail in crime No. 55of 2025 of IV Town Police Station, VIsakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C) and 25 read with Section8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 2. On 12-03-2025 in between ll.30 hours and 13.00 hours at Railway New Colony Junction, Visakhapatnam, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found and arrested while they were transporting o2 K.Gs. of liquid Ganja (Hashish Oil). £Q_NTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER_:_ 3. S'ri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commissl'on 6f the crI'me. lt is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and theI'r arrest would Cause undue hardship and Prejudice tO the' dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4. lt is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent places of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the Process Of law.The petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assurecontinued cooperation in iuture proceedings.lt is also urgec! that •r~ the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condI'tiOn iS imposed While granting the bail, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petitI'On. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per confra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bailJ contending that the investigation is still underway and several materl-al witnesses are yet to be examined.It is subml't[ed that enlargement of the peti{ionerson bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non- cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioners, l'f released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the aIIegatI-OnS and the POtential threat to the integrity of the investI'gatiOn, it iS Submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand 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. ln the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions ofleamed counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: [[Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?" -i.r ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they had indulged in dealing with 2 K.Gs. of Hashish Oil which is a commercial quantity, The petitioners were arrested on 12-03-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 183 days. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is permanent resident of VamugaddaKothuru Village, Chintapalli Mandal, AIIuri Sitarama Raju District, and the petitioner-accused No. 2 is permanent resident of chavatapadu village, Chowdupalli Mandal, AIluri Sitarama Raju District. Witnesses so far examined are official witnesses. Prime portion of the investigation is completed. Therefore, the chances of the petitioners threatening the witnesses or intermeddling the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. No remand extension petition is filed within the statutory period of 180 days as contemplated under Section 36 (A) (4) o?the A N DPS Act. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the period of judicial detention undergoing by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the pet'ltioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two Sureties for the like Sum : --E---- ¢\ each to the satisfaction of learned I Additional Chief JudicI-a` MagI'Strate, Visakhapatnam,- (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shaII appear before the Station Hot]se Officer concerned on every saturday in between 10.-00 am and 05.loo pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Courf]. (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concerned; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (v) The petitI'OnerS-accused Nos.1 and 2shaII cooperate with the investigating officer in further I'nVeStigatiOn Of the Case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall not, directly or I'ndireCtly, 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,I and (vii) ThepetI'tjOnerS-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall surrender their Passports, if any, tO the investigating officer. lf they claim >--- that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. //TRUE COPY// For sECTIO# sD/-u. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT RE#STRAR FFICER To, 1.I I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, lV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 5. One CC to Sri. Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 7. One spare copy MM HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATEDI-10/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3825 of 2025 ALLOWED