IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE iPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7162 OF 2025 Between: 1. Mahammad Shafeeq, S/o. Abdul Rehaman, aged about 24 years, R/o. Kavutungal H.S., Nellithingara Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kadake District, Karnataka State. 2. Divyanshu Shukla @ Prabal, S/o. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, aged about 20 years, R/o. Amahta Village, Raniganj Post, Savalya Tehsil, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh State. 3. Om Shukla @ Ayush, S/o. Santosh Shukla, aged about 21 years, R/o. Shivgarha (Karka) Village, Suwansa Post, Gaura Tehsil, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh State. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS/437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.35/2025 of Pachipenta P.S., now Parvathipuram Manyam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: 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 to 3 on bail in Crime No. 35 of 2025 of Pachipenta Police Station, now Parvathipuram, Manyam District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 10.03.2025, the S.l of Pachipenta Police Station received information about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja. Immediately, he secured the mediators and rushed to Durga Gudi, near P. Konavalasa Check Post, Pachipenta Mandal and conducted vehicle checking. The Police noticed three persons with three bags coming from Sunki side towards P. Konavalasa Check Post and on seen the police, the three persons tried to escape. The Police apprehended the Accused 1 to 3 and seized 30.020 Kgs of ganja under cover of mediators report. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Adapa Sudhakar 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 him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their family 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. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have co-operated 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. 4. 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 obstructing the course of justice. may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that no petition was filed seeking for extension of the remand of the Petitioners for further period beyond 180 days. 6. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law, if enlarged bail. 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 it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 7. on POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. 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: As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 3 is that they had indulged in dealing with 30 Kgs of ganja, it is a commercial quantity. The Petitioners were arrested on 10.03.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 185 days. The Petitioner No.1 is resident of Nellithingara Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kadake District, Karnataka State; the Petitioner No. 2 is permanent resident of Amahta Village, Raniganj Post, Savalya Tehsil, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh and Petitioner No.3 is the 9. permanent resident of Shivgargh (Karka) Village, Suwansa Post, Gaura Tehsil, Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh. They have got fixed abode. Section 36A(4) of ‘the Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the Petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 have indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to 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. 10. an one CONCLUSION: Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, their alleged role played in this case, and the statutory period of 180 days of detention undergone by the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: 11. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall be enlarged bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till completion of investigation. I. on on every iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall not commit or IV. indulge in commission of any offence in future. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 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. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 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 V. VI. from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. The Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 shall surrender their VII. passport, 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. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU assistant F^GISTRAR SECTIO^FFICER //TRUE COPY// I To, 1. The Station House Officer, Pachipenta P.S., now Parvathipuram Manyam District. Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 2. The 3. The District. 4. One CC to SRI. ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] CCS to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two [OPUC] 6. One spare copy KN HIGH COURT h-- DR.YLR,J !■ DATED:09/09/2025 ORDER h: CRLP.No.7162 of 2025 t- ALLOWED