IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT A WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEM TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6219 OF 2025 Betwee n : • i ;:...i-.:*== 1. Pangi Ramachandar, Jamiguda Village and Panchayat, Pedabayalu MandaI, Alluri SI'tharama Raju DI-Strict, A.P. 2. Killo Lalitha, W/o. Jayaram, aged about 25 years, R/o. Jamiguda Village and Panchayat, pedabayalu Mandal, AIIuri Si{harama Raju District, A.P. uuPetitioner/Accused No.1, 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by :ts Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ....Respondent Petition under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased {o enlarge the Petitioners/Accused N9.1, 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 9/2025 of Pedabayalu P.S., now AIIuri Sitharama Raju District Counsel for the Petitioners : srI-Gollapalli Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.P.Akhila Naidu Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 3 on bail in crime No. 9 of 2025 of Pedabayalu Police Station, Alluri Sitarama Raju District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with Sections 25 and 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs{ancesAct,1985 (for short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 05-03-2025 at about 10 a.m. near Kothape{ Junction, Adugulaput Panchayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, AIIuri Sitarama Raju District, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pedabayalu Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found accused Nos. 1 and 3 while they were in possession of 70 K.Gs. of Ganja. Thereafter, the police seized the contraband, arrested accused Nos.1 and 3 and remanded them tojudicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri 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 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 prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail {o the petitioners. c-.--i-----` ___ 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 assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. lt is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged {o allow the petition. 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 {o be examined. lt is submitted 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 petitioners. 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 imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the .investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and jt is urged to di;miss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. ``qu .. ?5 :.,, L|-_- POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the Case Of the Prosecution and the contentions Of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: [lwhether the petitioners are entitled for grant Of bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. The petitioners-aCCu'Sed Nos.1 and 3, as per the Case Of Prosecution, allegedly indulged in dealing with 70 K.Gs. of Ganja which is a commercial quantity. The petitioners Were arrested On 05-03-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 189 days. The petit'lonerS are Permanent residents of Jamiguda Village and Panchayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, Alluri sitarama Raju District. Material witnesses have been examined. They are official witnesses. Major portion Of the investigation iS completed. Therefore, the chances of the petitioners threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. A petition is filed seeking for extension of remand for some more period before learned jurisdictional court concerned but the said petition has been dismissed on o9-09-2025. Charge sheet has not yet been filed even after COmPlet-Ion Of 180 days as per section 36 (A) (4) of 'the NDPS Act'. CONCLUSION: _ 9. Considering the faCtS and Circumstances Of the Case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: rf- i__ --- 5 The petl-tI'Oners-accused Mos.-1 and 3 shall be enlarged on ba" subject to thel'r executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fJVe thousand only) wl-th two sureties for the like sum each to the satjsfactlon of learned Judjcjal I class Magistrate, paderu,I The petl'{I-Oners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 she" appear before the sta{I'On House officer concerned on every saturday I-n between 10.COO am and o5.-00 pm till cognjzance js taken by learned tr,'aI Court;. (I'jl') (iv) (v) (vI') The petjtl-oners-accused Mos. 1 and 3 she" not leave the ll-mjts of the District without Offl'cer concerned,' prlor perml'ssI.On from the station House The petj{,'oners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 sha" not commI-I Or l'ndu'ge in commI'SSiOn of any offence I-n future,I The pet,tl.oners-accused Mos. 1 and 3 she" cooperate wl-th the I-nVeStjgating offJCer ln further lnves{lgatI|On of the case and sha" make themselves aval'lable for Interrogation by the jnvestI-gatjng officer as and when requ,'red,I The petl-tioners-accused Mos. 1 and 3 sha" not, dl-rectly or jncijrectly, make any I'nducement, threat or promise {o any person acqual'nted wj{h the facts of the'case so as to dl'ssuade him/her from dl'sctosl'ng such facts to the court or to any police offl-cer,a and i`-, .`-, (vii) The pet'ltionerS-accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall 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 dismissed. SD/-u. SRIDEVI Fo]~__ //TRUE COPY// Fgff© AS S I SsTEAcNTIOR# !STRAR FFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu. 2. The I Additional District & Session Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act: Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Pedabayalu Police Station, AIIuri Sitarama Raju District. 5. One CC to Sri GoIIapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] I 7. One spare copy CVSS t ~) HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED: 10/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6219 of 2025 ALLOWED ``£§qu € i.rlf1 •lq stp \us \+ /