APHC010483592025 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: 9505/2025 Between: 1. RAHUL KUMAR,, S/O PUNMARAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O NEAR MAHADEV MANDIR, JHAB VILLAGE, JALORE DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, GRP Guntakal, Nellore, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 APHC010483602025 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: 9506/2025 Between: 1. BHAGIRATH,, S/O. HARI RAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. KOLA REBARIYON KI DHANI, BHADRUNA POST, JALORE DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, GRP Guntakal, Nellore, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No. 9505 and 9506 of 2025 have been filed by accused Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge them on bail in crime No. 95 of 2025 of Nellore Police Station, GRP Guntakal, 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. On04-08-2025 at about 12.30 p.m. at the waiting hall, southern side of platform Nos. 2 and 3 of Nellore Railway Station, Nellore City, the Sub Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused No. 1 while he was in possession of 15 K.Gs. of Ganja and accused No. 2 while he was in possession of 10 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. SriB.Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocentsand havebeen 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 oftheir family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners havepermanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioners havecooperated with the investigation so far and assurecontinued 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 petitionerswould 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 petitionerson 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 petitionersabsconding 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 donot 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: 5 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?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that they had indulged in possession and transportation of 15 K.Gs. and 10 K.Gs. of Ganja respectively. Thus, the petitioners were indulged in possession of 25 K.Gs. of Ganja. However, on perusal of the mediators' report, accused No. 2 was found in possession of 10 K.Gs. of Ganja, which is not a commercial quantity, and accused No. 1 was found in possession of 15 K.Gs. of Ganja, which is also not a commercial quantity. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the rigor of Section 29 of 'the NDPA Act' would not be applicable to the case of the petitioners as seen from the mediators' report. The petitioners are permanent residents of Jalore District of Rajasthan State. They have got fixed abode. So are five witnesses are examined. They are all official witnesses. Material portion of the investigation is completed insofar as role of the petitioners is concerned. Hence, 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 and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlargethem on bail with the following stringent conditions: 6 (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 Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore; (ii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 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 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 7 (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 affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petitions are accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:19-09-2025, JSK 8 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9505 AND 9506 OF 2025 DATE: 19-09-2025 JSK