APHC010328502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6759/2025 Between: Ranjit Biswas and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 on bail in Crime No.37 of 2025 of S. Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 12.03.2025, the Sub-Inspector S. Kota Police Station received information about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja. He secured the presence of mediators and rushed to Boddavara Checkpost and conducted vehicle checking. The police noticed one car coming from Araku side and stopped the car. The police noticed total five persons in the car and told the driver to open the dickey of the car. However, the driver and other four members tried to escape by leaving the car. The Sub-Inspector along with his staff apprehended the Accused. During the investigation, the Accused discloed their address particulars and basng on the confession statements, 70.100 Kgs of Ganja was seized under the cover of mediators report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri G. Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and 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 breadwinner of their family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertakes 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 them absconding or evading the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 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 custodial interrogation, 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 the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It 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 bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 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: 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen The allegation against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 is that they were involved in dealing with 70.100 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 12.03.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 183 days. The charge sheet has not yet been filed, though the inventory has been completed. Petitioners Nos.1, 2, and 4 are permanent residents of Malkangiri District, Odisha State, while petitioner No.3 is a resident of Meerut City, Meerut District, Uttar Pradesh State. They have fixed abode. The prime witnesses have already been examined, and all of them are official witnesses. The material portion of the investigation has been completed. Therefore, the chances of the petitioners tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or hampering the investigation may not arise. 8. Section 36A(4) of ‘the Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 have 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. 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 and 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 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. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners, their alleged role 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 conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing a 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 Judicial Magistrate of I Class, S.Kota. ii. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 shall appear before the Station House Officer, S.Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram 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/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 iv. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 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. vi. The Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2, 3, and 5 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 No.1, 2, 3, and 5 shall 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. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.09.2025 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2025 Dated 09.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6759 of 2025 Date:09.09.2025 KMS