IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: j THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA' CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7712 OF 2025 Between: Gudala Pardakiriti @ Pardhu, S/o (I) Sambhasiva Rao, Age 27 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. 3'"^ ward, SC Colony, Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Station, Visakhapatnam Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS 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 release the Petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in connection with Crime No. 62 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing Ihe arguments of SRI RAMINENI SUDHEER Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 4 on bail in crime No. 62 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 22-03-2025 at 8 hours, near APR School, Peddaboddepalli Village, the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused Nos. 2 to 4 while they possession of 100 K.Gs. of Ganja. were in CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri Rameneni Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 3. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and of law. 3 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, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, 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 petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail? 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 4, on a careful perusal of the record, is that he acted as driver of the car, in which the seized contraband of 100 K.Gs. was transporte4d. antecedents reported against the petitioner, those cases are registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. There are four adverse There is no similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner under the provisions of 'the The petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter as submitted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others^ the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal antecedents taken into consideration while considering the application for grant The petitioner is permanent resident of Narsipatnam Town, Anakapalli District. NDPA Act'. should not be of bail. Charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner was arrested on 22-03-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 182 days, length of time for taking up trial and disposal of the matter, petitioner in judicial custody until such indefinite time is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the It takes considerable Keeping the In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under Trial Prisoners) v. Union of India^, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that under trial prisoners cannot indefinitely Be detained pending trial. case. ^2020 (11) see 648 ^(1994)6 see 731 5 CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the alleged role played by the petitioner and the period of his judicial detention, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail with the following stringent conditions: The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the (i) satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate Narsipatnam; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 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 learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigatingofficeras and when required; (V) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 6 dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vi) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. 10. SDI- B.PRASAD RAO ASSISTANT/REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER F To 1. The Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Station, Visakhapatnam. The Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Narsipatnam. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. One CC to SRI. RAMINENI SUDHEER, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] One spare copy 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. KN HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 19/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7712 of 2025 ALLOWED //o ^ 2 a SEP ® CD ^7/