` .,* lN THE H[GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATL..,;I:f\''t^`,: WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4101 OF 2025 Between : 1. Kuda Ravisankar, S/o. Sannibabu, aged about 25 years, R/o. D.No. 3-101, Patha Paderu Village, Paderu Mandal, AIluri Sitharama Raju District, A.P. 2. Bonang Chantibabu, S/o. Rammurthy, aged about 29 years, R/o. D.No.39-032, Vanchula ChirapaIIi Village, G.Madugula Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, A.P. ...Petitioners/Accused No.2, 3 I+,..AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,'{' Rep by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Sections 437,_& 439 of Cr.P.C and Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.2, 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.595/2024 of pendurthi p,s., visakhapatnam District The petition coming on for-hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds fl-led in support thereat- and upon hearing the arguments Of Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner,(and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following <, WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4101/2025 Between : 1.KUDA RAVISANKARu S/o. SANNIBABU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-101, PATHA. PADERU VILLAGE, PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. 2.BONANG CHANTIBABUH S/O. RAMMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 yEARS, R/O. D.NO.39-032, VANCHULA CHIRAPALLI VILLAGE, G. MADUGULA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. .HPETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Court made the foIIo'wing: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity {the Cr.P.C.,I) and under sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS]), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on ba'll in cr.No.595 of 2024 of Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam commissionerate registers eg against the Petitioner/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 rfu I-I herein for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for brevity lthe NDPS Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell isthaton on 17.12.2024, the Sub-Inspector of Pendurthi Police Station received credible information regarding the illegal cultivation and possession of ganja. Acting promptly, he secured the presence of mediators and proceeded to Gavara Jaggayyapalem Village in Pendurthi MandaI, where he conducted vehicle checks. Upon arrival, the police observed three I-ndividuals on a scooty who attempted to flee upon sighting law enforcement. The police apprehended all three accused. During investI-gatiOn, based On their COnfeSSiOnal statements,10 kilograms of hash oil were seized under the cover of a mediators report. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the r-ecord. 4. Sri. G.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence; petitioners were falsely implicated by the police in the crime; petitioners are the sole breadwinners; Petitioners WOuld abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court; and urged to allow the petition. 5. Per cot,fra, Mr. NeelotphaI Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that some more material witnesses have to be examined; investigation is not complete-d; if the ., \ .Tee |\ C9 I petitioners are enlarged c,n, bail, they would not be available for the investigation and they would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. . As seen from the record, the petitioners have been in the judicial custody for the past 200 days. C_h_a_rge Sheet in this case` i_s .I_9t <¥.elfil_e_d® The petitioners are residents of Paderu MandaI, and G.Madugula Mandal, A[lurj c' Sitharama Raju District of Andhra Pradesh. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail with stringent conditi'ons, they would not flee away from the clutches of the law, and interest of the justice would be served. 7. Keeping in view of the period of detention undergone by the petitioners in judicial custody for more than 200 days, the nature and gravity of allegation [eve]]ed against the petitioners, stage of investigation and their alleged role in - _ _--.ry .-_....- the case, th'ls Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions. 8. ln the result, the Criminal Petition' is allowed with the following conditions: i. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject tO them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station , Visakhapatnam z,.4 <'J commissionerate, on every saturday in between 10:00 am and ~| o5|.00 pm, till cognizanCe 'lS taken by the learned the Trial Court. i'li. The petitioners shall not leave the limits Of the District without pr|lor permission from the learned vll Addit|lonal Judic|lal First class Mag®lstrate, Visakhapatnam. iv. The petitioners Shall not COmm'lt Or 'lndulge in commission of any offence in future, v. The petit'lonerS Shall cooperate With the inVeSt'lgating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogat-Ion by the investigating officer as and when requ'lred. vi. The petitioners 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 disc.ln.Qim SIlr_h facts to the court or to any police officer, SD/-G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANTZ2gu¥lSTRAR Tol 1 .J A, ¢ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// o[ulluN urrluEK I,...:i ;-:('J;. 1. The I Add'ltionaI D®lstrict & sessions Judge-Gum-Special Judge for Trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. 2. The VII Add'ltional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC to Sri GollapaIIi Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs toPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 7. One spare copy. PSD uE= HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 25/06/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.4101 of 2025 ALLOWED i\\,\\ \ \