APHC010454222025 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: 9029/2025 Between: PANGI NAGESWARA RAO ALIAS VAMSI, S/O. SUNDARAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. NEERUTHOTAPALEM VILLAGE, MONDIGEDDA POST, G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Cr.No.1 of 2025 of Annavaram Police Station, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) 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 02.01.2025, on receipt of information about illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub Inspector of Police, Annavaram along with mediators and staff rushed to Lothugedda Bridge, Chinthapalli Mandal and conducted vehicle checking. The police apprehended one person while two other accused escaped from the scene. During investigation, the police seized 10 Kgs of ganja from the possession of Accused No.1. Basing on the confession of Accused No.1, the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3. The police arrested the petitioner/Accused No.3 on 23.07.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family 3 and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The quantity of ganja involved in this case is not a commercial quantity. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is permanent resident of G.K.Veedhi Mandal of ASR District, Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are 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. She further submits that there are four similar adverse antecedents against the petitioner. 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. 4 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. 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 Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. As seen from the record, the allegations against the petitioner/A.3 are that he along with other accused indulged in dealing with 10 Kgs of ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2025. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 45 days. FIR was lodged on 02.01.2025. Although, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are four similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1 at Para No.7 observed that criminal antecedents cannot be basis for refusal of bail. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, the quantity of ganja involved in this case and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 5 i. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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 learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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 to any police officer. 6 vii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9029/2025 Date: 12.09.2025 KA