IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMA THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7981 OF 2025 Betwee n : AND [3521 I `'1~-. ^,,+\ `,..` ,, Mogilisetti Devi, W/o Durga Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o D.No. 2-3/2, Nookalamma Temple Street, Pavara Village, Samalkota Mandal, East Godavari District. Petitioner/Accused No.6 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Station House Officer, Pithapuram Town Police Station, East Godavari District. Respondent/Complainant ./_ ., Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS and Under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Bail to the petit-loner/Accused No.6 in connection with Crime No. 226 of 2024, on the file of Pithapuram Town Police Station. The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PAVAN KUMAR ARADHYULA Advocate for the Petitioner, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) for the Respondent and the Court made the following. EE=E= APHCO10394082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA.PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R-AO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7981/2025 Between : Mogilisetti Devi AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the petitioner/accused: Pavan Kumar Aradhyula [3521] H.PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: Public Prosecutor The Court macle the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for brevI'ty [the CrIP.C.I)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity fthe BNSS]), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.6 on baI'I in Cr.No.226 of 2025 of Pithapuram Town Police Station, Kakinada Di-strict, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 herein for the offences € : ct6.== .-r JI\ `_-'=__ _,`'_,I., I 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7981 of 2025 Dated 07.08.2025 punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for brevity [the NDPS ActJ). 2. 2. The case of the prosecution isthaton 28.10.2024 at 12:00 hours, on NH-216 Bye-pass Road] Pithapuram Town, and reported on the same day at 3:30 p.m., upon receipt of credible information regarding illegal transportation of contraband in an auto-rickshaw, the Sub-Inspector of Police obtained authorization from the SDPO, Kakinada, secured the presence of two mediators, a weighing peison, and a private photographer, an.d along with the available staff, proceeded from Pithapuram Town to Raparthi Road. A raid was conducted at the said location in the presence of mediators, during which the accused Nos.1 to 4 were apprehended while they were found in possession of and transporting 88 kgs of ganja in 4 bags in an auto-rickshaw from Korukonda. Accused No.1 was piloting the route on a motorcycle. With the consent of accused Nos.1 to 4, the Tahsildar, Pithapuram, conducted a search of the accused, the auto- rickshaw, and the motorcycle, and seized four bags of ganja worth Rs.1,76,000/- and three mobile phones from the possession of the accused, under the cover of a detailed mediator report. 3. Sri Pavan Kumar Aradhyula, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged Offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. lt is further submitted that the petitioner js the ``.t} ., /. Em 3 I Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7981 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his continued I-nCarCeration would cause undue hardship {o his dependents. The pet[-tjoner undertakes to s{rjctly adhere to any condjtjons that may be imposed by {hjs court. ln light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petjtjon be allowed in the I'ntereS{ Of juStiCe. 4. Per confra, Mr. Neelotpha[ GanjI-, the learned Assis{an{ public prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petl't['oner, submj{ting that the I-nvestigation ]|s still underway and several materI'al wI-tneSSeS remain to be examI'ned. [t js contended that if the pe{jtj`oner is released on ba" at this stage, there I-S a Strong likelihood {ha{ he may abscond, thereby hamperI'ng the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, I't iS urged that the petition be dism!'ssed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AssI-Slant Public prosecutor. perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, a learned Single Judge ofthl-s court, in crl.p. No.1851 of 2025, enlarged Accused No.1 on ba" on 28.02.2025. Another learned single Judge of this court, in crI.P: No.2417 of 2025, enlarged Accused No,4 on baI'l On 17.03.2025. Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 confessed against Accused No.6. Accused Nos.1, 2, and 4 were arrested at the spot, and they allegedly revealed that Accused No.6 was the ultimate beneficI'ary Or recel-ver of the contraband. The petitioner was arrested on o9.05.2025 and \ _ -_ I \±` 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7981 of 2025 Dated 07.08.2025 has been in judicial custody for the past 89 days. The learned counsel for.the petitioner relied on the. judgement of the Hon'beI Apex Court in Suraj Vijay- Agarwal v. The State of Maharashtra, in I.A.Nos.117497, 123261 and 12315 of 2023, dated 21.08.2023, in para No.4, the Honjble Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner therein on the ground that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. ln the instant case also, Accused Nos.1 and 4 have been granted bail by this Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pithapuram. ij. The petitioner/Accused No.6 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 lea.rned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. `.£,-I I . • 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.7981 of2025 Dated 07.08.2025 iv. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit,or indulge in commission Of any Offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investl'gatI-On Of the Case and Shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.6 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 {o any poll-6e officer. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. SD/-B.PRASAD RAO To, ASSISTANT //TRUE,I COPY// SECTION I 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry. 3. The Station House Officer, Pithapuram Town Police Station,Kakinada District. 4. One CC to SRl. PAVAN KUMAR ARADHYULA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecu{oi (AP) High Court ofA.P., Amaravati Ji HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED : 07/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.7981 of 2025 ALLOWED