\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9494 OF 2025 5 ‘AM ‘i-- ■K£ \ ft Between: 1. Chevvakula Nithish alias Banti, S/o Kantha Rao Aged 23 Ye Mala, Santhi Nagar Sankaragupatam Village Malkipuram Manda 2. Amiti Prasanth Kumar, S/o Raja Sekhar, Aged 22 Years C/SC Mala Bangle Street, Rajahmundry Urban East Godavari District. Rajahmundry. 3. Taadi Harish Babu, S/o Bapuji Aged 28 Years, C/SC Mala Rajeev Nagar, Padamatapalem. Battelanka Village, Malkipuram Mandal 4. Korukonda Manoj, S/o Gangadhara Rao, Age 20 Yrs, C/SC Mala Ckakalipalem Battelanka Village, Malkipuram Madal. 5. Bhapathi Dishone Kumar, S/o Rajesh, Aged 19 years, C/SC Mala Chintalamori Village, Malkipuram Mandal 6. Goda Samson, S/o Pothuraju, Aged 20 Years, C/ST Yerukola Kesanaplli Village, Malkipuram Mandal. In s\’ \ .4= fi V ■?- J ...Petitioners/Accused-A-1 to A-6 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS (Old Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C) is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail in Cr. No 144/2025 Malkipuram police station. Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms. Koppisetti Parvati Devi Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.P.Akhila Naidu Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010479262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9494/2025 Between: 1.CHEWAKULA NITHISH ALIAS BANTI, S/0 KANTHA RAO AGED 23 YEARS, 0/ SC MALA, SANTHI NAGAR SANKARAGUPATAM VILLAGE MALKIPURAM MANDAL.. 2.AMITI PRASANTH KUMAR, S/0 RAJA SEKHAR, AGED 22 YEARS C/SC MALA BANGLE STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY URBAN EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RAJAHMUNDRY 3.TAADI HARISH BABU, S/0 BAPUJI AGED 28 YEARS, C/SC MALA RAJEEV NAGAR, PADAMATAPALEM. BATTELANKA VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL 4.KORUKONDA MANOJ, S/0 GANGADHARA RAO, AGE 20 YRS , C/SC MALA CKAKALIPALEM BATTELANKA VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MADAL. 5.BHAPATHI DISHONE KUMAR, S/0 RAJESH, AGED 19 YEARS, C/SC MALACHINTALAMORI VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL 6.GODA SAMSON, S/0 POTHURAJU, AGED 20 YEARS, C/ST YERUKOLA, KESANAPLLI VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.PNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 KOPPISETTI PARVATI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant; PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 on bail in Cr.No.144 of 2025 of Malkipuram Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: On 16.08.2025 at about 5.00 P.M., at the house of Chavvakula 2. Kantha Rao in Sankaraguptam Village, Malkipuram Mandal, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Malkipuram, on receipt of prior credible information conducted a raid and apprehended A1 to A6 red-handed while in possession of 3 KGs of ganja, packed in a plastic bag and valued at about 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 Rs. 12,000/-. They were arrested and the contraband seized under the cover of a mediators’ report. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Ms.Koppisetti Parvathi Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the petitioners are innocent 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 family 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. It is further submitted that the petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far 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, the petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. 4. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl..PNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed to grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined.lt 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 bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 6. learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of 7. learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled for grant of bail? 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.PNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 ANALYSIS: As seen from the record, it is alleged by the prosecution that the 8. petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 were involved in possession and transportation of 3.00 kgs of ganja. The petitioners were arrested on 16.08.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 33 days. So far, ten witnesses have been examined. The material portion of the investigation has been completed, rmd all the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses. Hence, the question of the petitioners influencing or threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation may not arise. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that one adverse 9. antecedent is reported against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 under the provisions of ‘the POCSO Act, and one adverse antecedent is reported against petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. No adverse antecedent is reported against petitioner/Accus ed No.4. Be that as it may, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 are presumed to 10. be innocent until proven guilty. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others\ 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. 2020 (11) see 648 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl..PNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 CONCLUSION: 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees TwentyThousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. II. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall not commit or iV. indulge in commission of any offence in future. 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9494 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall cooperate V. 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. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 shall not, directly or VI. 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. 12. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. SD/-B.CHITTI JOSEPH assistan^r^istrar Ton officer //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole. 2. The Station House Officer, Malkipuram Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram Godavari District. 4. One CC to Ms. Koppisetti Parvati Devi Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 6. One spare copy East [OUT] cvss HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED: 19/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.9494 of 2025 ALLOWED