APHC010386872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7891/2025 Between: 1. R VIJAY ALIAS GUNDLAGATAM RAVICHANDRAN VIJAY, S/O LATE RAVI CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT RACHURU VILLAGE YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. K M RAJASEKHAR ALIAS KANDIGA, MAHADEVAN RAJASEKHAR S/O MAHADEVAN, RESIDING AT PATRAPALLI VILLAGE, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P , Amaravathi, Through Station House Officer, Chinttoor Police station, Chintoor, Allu Sitharama raju District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M S BANU PRASAD 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.3 and 4 on bail in Crime No.34 of 2025 of Chintoor Police Station, Alluri Sitharamaraju District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the 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 27.05.2025 at about 5.00 p.m at RTC Bus Stand of Chinturu Village and Mandal, the Petitioners are trying to transport of 30 Kgs of ganja in two plastic bags, worth Rs. 1,50,000/- from Malkangiri, Odisha State to Chittoor District and arrested by the Police and seized the contraband, they purchased the ganja from the Accused No.1 in order to hand over the same to Accused No.2. Hence the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasad 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 them 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. 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 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 for 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 does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the 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 the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the Petitioners/ Accused No.3 and 4 are that they had indulged in dealing with 30 Kgs of ganja in two plastic bags. Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ would squarely applicable to the case on hand. The Petitioners were arrested on 28.05.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 105 days. The Petitioners had indulged in dealing with possession and transportation of ganja along with other accused allegedly. The investigation is at nascent stage, only two witnesses are examined. 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed to grant bail to the Petitioners. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Petitioners are not guilty of such offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners, this Court is not inclined to consider request for enlarging the Petitioners on bail at this juncture. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7891/2025 12.09.2025 KK