APHC010467342025 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: 9273/2025 Between: 1. KANKIPATI RADHAMADHAVA RAO ALIAS RADHA MADHAV PADAL, S/O. SIMHACHALAM PADAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. PEDAVALSA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR 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. 4 on bail in crime No. 9 of 2025 of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitarama Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 111 (2) (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and 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 12-03-2025 at about 11 hours at Cheedipalem Village Outskirts of Koyyuru, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 6.500 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and 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 of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and 3 assures 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, 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 petitioner 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 does not 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: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The petitioner's role, as seen from the record, is that he had allegedly indulged in dealing with 6.500 K.Gs. of Ganja along with other accused. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 07-08-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 42 days. The petitioner is permanent resident of Pedavalasa Village and Panchayat, G.K. Veedhi Mandal, Alluri Sitarama Raju District. He has got fixed abode. Even though learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner, it is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail for the reason that the petitioner shall be presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. Material portion of the investigation is completed. Prime witnesses are examined. They are all official witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner may not be in a position either to tamper the evidence or hamper the investigation or threaten the witnesses. 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 No. 4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his 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 learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli; 5 (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned; (iii) The petitioner-accused No. 4 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; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (v) The petitioner-accused No. 4 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 No. 4 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 No. 4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 6 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:17-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9273 OF 2025 DATE: 17-09-2025 JSK