APHC010301162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6135/2025 Between: Kimudu Halman @ Hanuman and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of A P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Pangi Raju Babu Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 , seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in Crime No.137 of 2025 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, was registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25 read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act2. 1 The BNSS 2 The NDPS Act 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The material averments of the prosecution are that on 07.04.2025 at about 09:30 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police received credible information regarding the illegal transportation of ganja. Acting upon the information, he, along with his staff and mediators, proceeded to the old toll gate at Aganampudi, where they noticed an auto-rickshaw and a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle moving in a suspicious manner towards Visakhapatnam. Upon conducting a search of the vehicles, they found 112.270 kilograms of ganja and apprehended the petitioners and one CICIL. The contraband, along with the vehicles, was seized under the cover of a mediators’ report. Based on the said mediators’ report, the present petitioners were arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Panji Raju Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking them to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed to grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend 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 imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 8. As seen from the record, the allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are that, with the assistance of the other accused, they indulged in dealing with 112.270 kilograms of ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity. The Petitioners were arrested at the spot. Each of them has one adverse criminal antecedent. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no petition seeking extension of remand was filed before the learned Trial Court by the prosecution. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 08.04.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 182 days. The statutory period of 180 days has already expired. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 have a fixed place of abode and are permanent residents of Mandbha, Nakkametta Village, G. Madugula Mandal, ASR District. So far, eight witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official witnesses. Insofar as the role of the Petitioners is concerned, the material portion of the investigation has been completed. The chances of the petitioners threatening the witnesses, hampering the investigation, or tampering with the evidence may not arise. 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no report was filed before the learned Court below by the learned Public Prosecutor concerned seeking for extension period of judicial custody of the petitioners upto one year by indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period. 10. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 have an 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period. 11. Considering the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in judicial custody for the past 182 days, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners, and their alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Gajwuaka, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, 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/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 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. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.10.2025 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6135 of 2025 Dated 06.10.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6135 OF 2025 06.10.2025 KMS