IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .-PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9360 OF 2025 Between.I `--SS=fg`-rty~:r#*H£ 1. Rasu L, S/o. Lakshmanan, aged about 27 years, R/o. Gandhi Nagara!, Kasaba Hobili, padukote, Heggadaevanakota sub-District, Mysore DistrI'Ct, Karnataka state. 2. Shadik Hussain, c/o. slab UddI-n, aged about 22 years, R/o. No.06,1st Main lst Cross, Hongasan`dra, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru, Karnataka State. ...Petjtjoner/Accused Moll, 2 AND The State of Andhra pradesh, Rep by its public prosecutor, HI-gh Court of Andhra pradesh ...Respondent pet,'tion under section 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old SectI-OnS 437 & 439 of cr.p.c), praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds fI|led in support of the criminal petition, the High Court inay be pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 on bail, pending dI'SPOSal of crime No.298/2025 of Vjsakhapatnam Railway P.S., Visakhapatnam. counsel for the petlltiOnerS .-Sri GoIIapaIIi Maheswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent .-Ms.P.Akhila Naidu Assistant public prosecutor. The Court made the folI®wimg ORDER: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the fo[[owing: 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No. 298 of 2025 of Visakhapatnam Railway Police Station, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offence punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(B), read with 8(c) of the N'arcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity fthe NDPS ActJ). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 24.08.2025, on receipt of credible information the s.I of Police along with mediators rushed to North End of Platform No.6 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station and noticed two persons with one backpack bag. On seeing the police, they tried to escape. The Police apprehended them and seized 10 Kgs of ganja under cover of Mediators Report and registered the above case. , +¢ CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G. Maheswar Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no pr,-ma fac,'e material or cogent evidence connecting the petitioners 'to the commiss'IOn Of the Crime. lt iS further contended that the petitioners are the sole earn'lng members of their family and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to their dependents. The Petit®loners undertakes tO comply With any condition that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and Proper tO 'lmPOSe While considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. lt is further Subm-ltted thatthe Petit'loner No.1 is a permanent resident Of Kasaba Hob-Ill, Padukote, Mysore District, Karnataka State and Petit®loner No.2 is a permanent resident of Hongasandra, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru, Karanataka State and there exists nO aPPrehenS'lOn Of their absconding Or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. lt is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necess'ltate custod'lal interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to se.cure the ends of justice. ln v'lew of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OFTHE STATE : / 5. Per confra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material Witnesses yet tO be examined. It is submitted that the Premature enlargement Of the Petitioners On i T`as-T-.-'.. \ \ t`` .iz+.+ bail would be inI'miCal to the sanctity end efficacy Of the ongoI-ng investigative Process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the petitioners. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the petitioners may exert undue I|nfluence -upon, or I-ntimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administratl-on of justice and vitiating the evidentI-any foundation of the case. lt is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 6. ln vI'eW Of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed tO the integrl-ty of the investigation, I-I is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the I'ndulgence of dl-scretionary relief and I|t iS urged to dismiss the present criminal petI|tiOn. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION 7. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now merj{ing for consideration is.I "Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYS IS.- 8. The allegation agaI'nSt the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2, as seen from the record is that they have indulged in possession and transportation of 10 Kgs of ganja along with other Accused. The Petitioners were arrested on 24.08.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 25 days. Period for cus{od-lal interrogation was also over. So far, 7 witnesses have been examined. chances of petitioners threatening the witnesses, tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise=J+S,inCe the Witnesses _I Ei-,- examined are all official witnesses. The` the Petitioner No.1 is a permanent resident of Kasaba Hobili, Padukote, Mysore District, Karnataka State and petitioner No.2 is a permanent resident of Hongasandra, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru, Karanataka State and they have got fixed abode. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the critical condition of the Petitioners, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, the'lr alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on ba'll subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned vI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ra'llways, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigat'lng officer in further investigation of the case anci `,`\ E= lSTRAR shall make themselves avail.able for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. iv. 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 td the court or to any police officer. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. lf 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, //TRUE COPY// SD/-N.NAGAMMA ASsS:S#: ll:TER: I Tol 1. The VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Railways, Visakhapa{nam. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Station House Officer, Government Railway Police Station, I Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam DI-Strict. 4. One CC to Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One spare copy CVSS . I " E=E HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED : 24/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9360 of 2025 ALLOWED