APHC010467152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9270/2025 Between: 1. NIRANJAN BIND, S/O. RAJ RAM BIND, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. RUPIN GRAM, AMAWAN POST, KAIMUR (BHABUA) DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE. 2. HARSH TIWARI, C/O. PRAMOD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. MAHARANA PRATAP WARD NO.44, KAMI DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO 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 petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 2 on bail in crime No. 285 of 2025 of Visakhapatnam Police Station, GRP Vijayawada, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 18-08-2025, near North End, Platform No. 1 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station, while accused Nos. 1 and 2 were waiting to board SMVT Bengaluru SF Express to go to Bengaluru, they were apprehended and arrested while they were in possession of 10.6 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioners have cooperated with the investigation so far 3 and assure continued 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, petitioners 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 yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioners on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, 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 petitioners do not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and 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: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that they had indulged in dealing with 10.6 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 18-08-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 31 days. The petitioner-accused No. 1 is resident of Bihar State and the petitioner-accused No. 2 is resident of Madhya Pradesh State. Thus, they have fixed abode. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Important witnesses are examined. They are all official witnesses. Hence, the chances of the petitioners either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the alleged role played by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each 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 learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Visakhapatnam; (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 5 10:00 am and 05:00 pm till cognizance is taken by learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 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; (v) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 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 such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (vi) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they do not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 17-09-2025, JSK 6 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9270 OF 2025 DATE: 17-09-2025 JSK