[3521 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGU^^^^^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA R^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8511 OF 2025 % ol ffiM o/. vs r-:-; Between: Kakara Mathyalingam @ Vikram Singh, Age 33 years, R/o Kambala bayalu Village, Singarbha Panchayat, G.Madugula Mandal Alluri Sita Ramaraju District Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House officer. Prohibition & Excise Pendurthi Station, Visakhapatnam Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. Respondent Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C), praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in release the on bail in connection with Crime No. 77 of 2024 of Prohibition & Excise Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam. support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Petitioner/Accused No.2 The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and RAMINENI SUDHEER, Advocate PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the Court made the following; upon hearing the arguments of Sri for the Petitioner and of PUBLIC 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. 2 on bail in crime No. 77 of 2024 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Pendurthy, 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 is that on 05-03-2024 at about 5.30 a.m., the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Pendurthy, along with his staff and mediators reached near Bus Stop of Saripalli Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and found the petitioner and accused No. 1 under suspicious circumstances. On seeing them, accused No. 2 ran away from the scene. On verification, the Enforcement Officials found accused No. 1 in possession of 18 K.Gs. of Ganja. Thereafter, the Enforcement Inspector seized the contraband, arrested accused No. 1 and remanded him to judicial custody. 2. 3. Sri Ramineni Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that 4 the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and, therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the 3 foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed i interest of justice. in the 4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, investigation is still underway and several material witnesses Public Prosecutor, submitting that the remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner-accused No. 2 was arrested on 22-07-2025 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 38 days. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was indulged in dealing with 18 K.Gs. of Ganja. The role of the petitioner came into light when accused No. 1 gave confession against the petitioner. Although learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there, is one adverse antecedent against the petitioner, that itself is not a ground to deny the request of learned counsel for the petitioner because the petitioner shall be presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. The alleged contraband seized in this case is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner is permanent resident of Kambala Bayalu Village, G.Madugula Mandal of Alluri Sitaramaraju District. He has got 4 permanent abode. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Important witnesses have been examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the chances of the petitioner threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner-accused No. 2 on bail with the following stringent conditions; (i) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Visakhapatnam; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall not leave the limits of the (iii) l district without prior permission from the investigating officer; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; 5 (V) The petitioner-accused No. 2 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required; The petitioner-accused No. 2 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 (Vi) such facts to the court or to any police officer; and The petitioner-accused No. 2 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 (vii) investigating officer. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. 8. SD/. G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT r SECTION OFFICER f^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// F t To, I 1. The VII Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate at Visakhapatnam 2. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act:: Visakhapatnam 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam 4. The Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam 5. One CC to SRI. RAMINENl SUDHEER Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] 7. One spare copy KJ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:28/08/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.8511 of 2025 ALLOWED