E] < .i-i-i- . IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAl THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DFt JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Between : CRIMINALPETmONNO:5990OF2025 ,f 1. Sheikh lmtiyaz @ lnthiyaz, s/o. Akbar, AI35 years, C/Muslim, D.No.9-47, Naya Street, Kambham Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, A. P 2. Sheikh Abdul Salim @ Salim, S/o. Saboor Basha, Age/ 40 years, Caste/ Muslim, Singaraikonda village and Mandal, Prakasam District, A. P I..Petitioner/Accused No.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the station House Officer, Rajanagaram ps, East Godavari Disthct, Represented by public Prosecutor, High court ofAndhra Pradesh ...Respondent Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds of criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant them bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit directing their enlargement in Crime No.119 of 2025 of Rajanagaram police statl'on; 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 Duggirala Subash, Advocate for the petitioners and public prosecutor for the Respondent, the court made the following; ORDER: -# I The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the i Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSSj), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Mos.1 anc! 2 on bail ['n Cr.No.119 of 2025 of Rajanagaram police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act,1985 (for brevity lthe NDPS AetI). 2- .-t`-.. a E| Dr.YLR, I Crl.P.No.5990 of2025 ' Datedll.09.2025 CASE`OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. .The case of the prosecution is that on ll.03.2025 at about 4:00 A.M., near the under-bridgie on Airport Road, Konthamuru village, I Rajamahendravaram rural, police received credible information about Ganja transportation. The Sub-Inspector of Rajanagaram P.S. conducted vehicle checks, intercepted a Swift Dzire (AP 39 A 3333) and a passenger auto (AP39 TH 8737), and found 75 packets of GanJ'a (150 Kgs, worth €7,50,000) in possession of Accused Nos.1 to 5, who were arrested on ,the spot. The accused confessed to transporting , Ganja with support from absconding Accused Nos.6 to 8. Vehicles, cont+aband, and five cell phones were seized under mediator's report. I coNTEN"ONS OF THE !COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: I 3. Sri Duggirala Subash, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have. been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent'6vidence linking them to the commission of the crime. lt is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardshI'P and Prejudice tO their dependents. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. i 4. [t is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent plac.e of i residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evac!ing the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investir]ation' so far i--T ',--~3 O /,7 t| i 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5990 of2025 Dated ll.09.2025 and assures contI-nued cooperation in future proceedings. !t is also urged that the allegations,are of a nature that do not warrant custodI-al interrogation, and if any condition is I-mposed while granting the baI-I, Petitioners would not vI-OIate it; and it is urged to allow the petI'tiOn. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila NaI'du, learned AssI-Slant Public Prosecutor i strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the I-nVeStigatiOn iS Still undervay and several material witnesses are to b6 examined. lt is subml-tted that enlargement of the petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petI'tiOnerS. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and immI-nent risk Of the PetI-tiOnerS absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the I gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, i{ is submitted that the petI'tiOnerS dO not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petI'tiOn. POINT FOR CONSIDERATIO 6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the leamed Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the petitioner is entitlecl for g;ant of bail?" ANAL'YSI I 4 . Dr-YLR, ` CrI.P.No.5990 of2025 Dated ll.09.2025 7. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2, are that they had allegedly indulged in possession and transportatI'On Of 152 Kgs of ganja along with other accused. It is undoubtedly ( a commercial quantl'ty. T!he petitioners were arrested on ll.03.2025. They I have been I'n the judicial Custody for the Past 184 days. The petitioners are Permanent residents Of Kambham Village and Singaraikonda vlLIIage and MandaI, Prakasam District. They have fixed abode. The prime witnesses have already been examined, and all of them are official wI-tneSSeS. The material I portion Of the investigation has been completed. Therefore, the chances of the Petitioners tamPering With evidence, threatening witnesses, or hampering the investI'gatiOn may not arise. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that trlere is no informa{l-on about filing of an application seeking for extension of the remand beyond 180 days. I 8. Section 36A(4) of 'the Act' states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have an indefeasl-ble right to bail, un'less the special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indI-Cating the b`rogress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period. CONCLUSION: I/ +a .5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.599O of2025 Dated ll.09.2025 9. Considering the nature and gravl'ty of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, their alleged roles played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditI-OnS: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties each for the like sum eac'h to the sa{I'SfaCtiOn Of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-Gum-JudicI'al MagI-Strafe Of I class, Rajamahendravaram, ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Rajanagaram Police Stall-on, East Godavari District, on every saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioners/Accusec] Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the ll-mits of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in futunre. v. I The Petitioners/Accused Mos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigaticm of the case anci shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when requirec!. i..i \ \* \ 6 Dr.YLR, ` Crl.P.No.5990 of 2025 Dated ll.09.2025 vl-. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender his - passport, if any, to the investigating officer. [f he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. sD/-K.J.RAJA BABU //TRUE COPY// For To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Gum-Judicial Magistrate of I class, ,4JZZ7 Rajamahendravaram. 2. The lstAdditionaI Sessions Judge at Rajamahendravaram. #- 3. The Superintendent, central prison at Rajamahendravaram. 7~f f 4. The Station House Officer, Rajanagaram ps, East Godavari District. Zz 5. One CC to Srl. Dugglrala Subash, Advocate [OPUC] ZZ1 __ 6. TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor, HighCourtofAP[OUT] zjj 7. One spare copy HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED..ll/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5990 of 2025 ALLOWED \\,.I `