APHC010417302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THETWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8423/2025 Between: 1. MUKESH KUMAR CHOWDARY, S/O ABRAHAM CHOWARY, MAIN ROAD, BALEBADOLI VILLAGE, INDORE DISTRICT MADYA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the Station House Officer, Maredumilli Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VEERLA SATEESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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. 7on bail in crime No. 40of 2014 of Maredimilli Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B)read with Section8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 26-07-2014 at about 2 p.m. at the outskirts of Somireddypalem of Maredumili Village, on Maredumilli to Chintoor Road, the Inspector of Police, Maredimilli Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused Nos. 2 to 9 while they were transporting 400 K.Gs. of Ganja. Thereafter, the police seized the contraband, arrested accused Nos. 2 to 9 and remanded them to judicial custody. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No. 1 escaped from the scene. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri V.Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocentand 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 breadwinnerof his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakesto 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 ofhim absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assurescontinued cooperation in future proceedings.Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner met with an accident in the year 2015. He underwent 15 to 18 surgeries. Therefore, he could not attend before the trial Court. 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 AssistantPublic Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the petitioner was absconding from 18-11-2015 onwards. The petitioner was arrested on execution of non-bailable warrant on 03-06-2025 with great difficulty. It is therefore urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioner absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations, it is submitted that the petitioner doesnot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand 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: 4 “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 7 was that in the year 2014, with the assistance of other accused, he indulged in dealing with 400 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The petitioner was absconding from 18-11-2015 onwards. The petitioner was arrested on execution of non-bailable warrant on 03-06-2025 with great difficulty. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 102 days. Nearly for one decade, he evaded the process of law. Sessions Case is of the year 2015. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail and if he absconds again, it would be very difficult for the police to secure his presence for completion of trial. Therefore, the request of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 12-09-2025, JSK 5 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8423 OF 2025 DATE: 12-09-2025 JSK