APHC010470502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9375/2025 Between: 1. BANGARU RAMU ALIAS KALYAN, S/O YESU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, TETAGUNTA VILLAGE. TUNI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Officer, Annavaram Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ANIL BABU K.R. 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. 7 on bail in crime No. 13 of 2024 of A.AnnavaramPolice Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, 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: 2. On 16-03-2024 at about 2 p.m., at Lothugedda Bridge of Chinthapalli Mandal, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, A.Annavaram Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested four persons while they were transporting 50 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K.R.Anil Babu, 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, Sri Neelothpal Ganji, 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 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 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 petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 7, as seen from the record based on the confession of accused Nos. 1 and 2, is that he had also indulged in dealing with 50 K.Gs. of Ganja. No doubt, that quantity is a commercial quantity. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were already enlarged on bail. A learned single judge of this Court, by order dated 16-07-2025 in Criminal Petition No. 4580 of 2024, enlarged accused Nos. 4 and 5 on bail on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 52-A of 'the NDPS Act' was not complied with based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Simarnjith Singh v. State of Punjab1. The petitioner is also standing on the similar footing. The petitioner was arrested on 25-06-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 92 days. Section 52-A of 'the NDPS Act' mandates the investigating agency to move an application before learned magistrate concerned for inventory and for drawing up of representative samples. By Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 of N.C.B., this process has to be taken out by the investigating agency within 72 hours of arrest and seizure. The learned single judge observed that on perusal of case diary, the abovementioned procedure was not followed. 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 him on bail with the following stringent conditions: 1 2023 LawSuit (SC) 859 5 (i) The petitioner-accused No. 7 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli; (ii) The petitioner-accused No. 7 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 No. 7 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) The petitioner-accused No. 7 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; (v) The petitioner-accused No. 7 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 petitioner-accused No. 7 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: 24-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9375 OF 2025 DATE: 24-09-2025 JSK