APHC010454732025 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: 9041/2025 Between: 1. JAJULA VENKATA VAMSI, S/O RAMU AGE 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 7- 11-20/2 NEAR RCM CHURCH, PANTULUGARIMEDA GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. through Station House officer, Gajuwaka Station, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMINENI SUDHEER 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 on bail in crime No. 322 of 2025 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 28-07-2025 at about 10.45 a.m. in Gardens, near High School Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found the accused while he was in possession of 2 K.Gs. of Ganja. Thereafter, the police seized the contraband, arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Ramineni Sudheer, 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 breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process 3 of law.The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assurescontinued 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, 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 Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the 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 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.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 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 is that he indulged in dealing with 2 K.Gs. of Ganja. He was arrested on 28-07-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 47 days. Although learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter, against whom 4 cases are registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal antecedents should not be taken into consideration while considering the application for grant of bail. The petitioner is permanent resident of Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Material portion of the investigation is completed. All the important witnesses are examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the chances of the petitioner threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation would not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioner-accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 1 2020 (11) SCC 648 5 thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam; (ii) The petitioner-accused 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 learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioner-accused shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned; (iv) The petitioner-accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (v) The petitioner-accused 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; (vi) The petitioner-accused 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; and (vii) The petitioner-accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does 6 not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:12-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9041 OF 2025 DATE: 12-09-2025 JSK 8