APHC010300962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO 1.CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6146 of 2025 Between: 1. PANGI PRASAD, S/O. LODA, AGED ABOUT 22YEARS, R/O. KOTHAWADA VILLAGE, G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT. AADHAR NO. 480113740327 1. THE STATE OF AP, Through Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6391 of 2025 Between: 1. PANGI BABU RAO @ BABI, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. LOBBUGUNTA VILLAGE, KOMMANGI PANCHAYAT, CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. 2. PALIKA MOHAN @ YOHAN,, S/O. NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. KINDANGI VILLAGE, BUDARALLA PANCHAYAT, KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6146& 6391 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6146 of 2025 PANGI PRASAD, S/O. LODA, AGED ABOUT 22YEARS, R/O. KOTHAWADA VILLAGE, G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT. AADHAR NO. 480113740327 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF AP, Through Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6391 of 2025 PANGI BABU RAO @ BABI, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. LOBBUGUNTA VILLAGE, KOMMANGI PANCHAYAT, CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. PALIKA MOHAN @ YOHAN,, S/O. NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. KINDANGI VILLAGE, BUDARALLA PANCHAYAT, KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO PANGI PRASAD, S/O. LODA, AGED ABOUT 22YEARS, R/O. KOTHAWADA VILLAGE, G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF AP, Through Station House Officer, Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT PANGI BABU RAO @ BABI, S/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. LOBBUGUNTA VILLAGE, KOMMANGI PANCHAYAT, CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. PALIKA MOHAN @ YOHAN,, S/O. NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O. KINDANGI VILLAGE, BUDARALLA PANCHAYAT, KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, as the Cr.No.42 of 2025 in the two cases is one and the same. 2. These Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6& 7 respectively on bail in Cr.No.42/2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6& 7herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2025, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff and mediators rushed to cashew nut tope, Sudikonda Hillock, outskirts of Peddipalem Village, Payakaraopeta Mandaland caught the accused Nos.1 to 5 in possession of 600 kgs of Ganja. The police seized the contraband, arrested the accused Nos.1 to 5 and remanded them to judicial custody. Basing on their extra confession, the police reached beside Swagath Grand Hotel, P.L.Puram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal and arrested Accused Nos.6 to 8. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners, contend that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the families and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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 Petitionersare entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 were allegedly indulged in dealing with 600 kgs of ganja, which is the commercial quantity. The petitioners have been languishing in jail since 21.02.2025. Nearly for the past 190 days. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitions filed for seeking extension of remand of the petitioners were filed, but they were dismissed. 9. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioner/Accused No.3 has an 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. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 in judicial custody for the past 190 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 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yelamanchili. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 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, 6 & 7 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the investigating officer; and vi. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 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. 11. Accordingly, these two Criminal Petitionsare allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 01.09.2025 AG 125 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:6146 & 6391 of 2025 Dated: 01.09.2025 AG