t`\`` .J` lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE l'.,.I- I : PRESENT: t`,, THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4162 OF 2025 Between : 1. Pankaj Kumar, S/o. Ram Shobhit Yadav, aged about 36 years, R/o. Ward No.1, Begamsarai, Bachwara, Begusarai, Bihar District. 2. Golden Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o. Ward No.5, Diwar, Chaknawada, Patna, Bihar District. ..I.Petjtjoners/Accused No.1J 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondemt Petition under section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C and Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 js filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hl'gh Cou'rf may be Pleased tO enlarge the Petitl|oners/Accused No.1, 2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.98/2025 of Visakhapatnam Railway P.S., Vjsakhapatnam; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memorandum of grounds of criminal 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; • -Zap 1 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Sura'ksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2on bail in crime No. 98 of 2025 ofVisakhapatnam Police Station, GRP Vijayawada District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with Section8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, '{he NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 12-03-2025 in between ll.30 hours and 14.00 hours at North End, Platform No, 6 ofVIsakhapatnam Railway Station, accused Nos.1 and 2 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 40 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned 3OunSel 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 commission of the crime. lt is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and preJ'udiCe tO the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail {o the petitioners. 4. It 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 future proceedings.!t is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition I'S imposed While granting the bail, the pe{itI'OnerS WOuld not violate it,I and it I'S urged tO allow the Petl-lion. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per confra, `Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.lt is submitted that enlargement of the petitionerson 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, I'f released, may l'nfluence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.lt is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evadl-ng the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegatI-OnS and the potential threat to the I'ntegrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petI'tiOnerS dOnOt deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petI'{iOn. 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 lI-ght Of the Case Of the Prosecution and the contentions oflearned counsel for both sides, now the point for consic!eration is: "Whether the petitioners are ant-ltlecl for grant of bail?'' . ,Jrf ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, it is the case of Prosecution that the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 had indulged in dealing with 40 K.Gs. of Ganja which is a commercial quantity. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are bro{hers. Accused No. 2 is their friend. lt is submitted that accused No. 2 has been suffering from Kidney problem. Accused No. 2 is a coolie. The petitioners were arrested on 12-03-2025, They have been in jud'lcial custody for the past 1'83 days. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is permanent resident of Begamsarai, Bachwara, Begusarai, Bihar State and the petitioner-accused No. 2 is permanent resident of Diwar, Chaknawada, Patna, Bihar State. Prime portion of the investigation is completed. Material witnesses, who are official witnesses, are examined. So, the occasion for the petit'loners either tO threat the witnesses or tamper the evidence or hamper the investigation would not arise. within the default period of 180 days, no application has been filed seeking for extension of judicial custody of the petitioners before learned jurisdictional court. charge sheet has not yet been filed even after completion of 180 days as per Section 36 (A) (4) of the NDPS Act. CONCLUSION: 9. Consider'lng the facts an-d circumstances of the Case and the nature and gravity of allegat-Ions levelled against the petitioners, this Court is incl'Ined tO enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners-accused Mos. 1 and 2shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- € `\ ¢r-.- (jj) (ijj). (jv) (v) (vI' ) 5 (Rupees twenty flve thousc~Ind only) wI{h two sureties for the llke sum each to the satI-Sfactl-on of learned vl Addl'tI'Onal JudI'CiaI Mag,'strate of I class for RaI'lWays - Gum - vI Addl-tlonal cI'V" Judge, vI-Sakhapatnam,I The pe[Itl®Oners-accused Mos. 1 and 2sha" appear before the statlon House offICer concerned on every saturday jn between 10.loo am and o5.loo pm till cognl'zance I-S taken by learned tn|al Cour[l. The peti{joners-accused Mos. 1 and 2sha" not leave the ll-ml'ts of the Distr,'ct without prI'Or permissI|On from the station House Offl-cer concerned,I The petj{ioners-accused Mos. 1 and 2sha" not commI-I Or I-ndulge in commjssl'on of any offence jn future,- The petj{joners-accused Nos] 1 and 2sha" cooperate wj{h the jnvestI'gatjng offl'cer I-n further I'nVeStjgation of the case and sha" make themselves avaI-table for jnterrogatjon by the investl-ga[l'ng offl.cer as and when requl-red,I The petitI-Oners-accused N,,s. 1 and 2sha" not, dl'rectly or I'ndjrectly, make any I-nducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted wI-{h the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any poll'ce officer,I and I `b~' .€ (vii) Thepetitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have a passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal pet-ltion is accordingly allowed. //TRUE COPY// For SD/-lI. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT R^Ef!STR,AR EH] SECTIO FFICER To, 1. The VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways-Gum-VI Additional Civil Judge, Visakhapatanam. 2. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge -Special Judge for Trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapantam. 3. The Super'lntendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam Railway Station, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC {o 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 DATED:10/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4162 of 2025 ALLOWED