APHC010484062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9596 OF 2025 Between: 1. SHAKTIMAN JENA, S/O JAMES, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O RAMGIRI, R.UDAYAGIRI, GAJAPATHI, ODISHA STATE 2. SINU RAITA, S/O LATE MADAN RAITA AGE 23 YEARS, R/O TARALASING, RAMAGIRI, GAJAPATHI ODISHA STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through Station House officer, Visakhapatnam Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMINENI SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in Crime No.259 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 24.07.2025 at 10.45 hrs, on receipt of credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff reached the Platform No.1 northern side, they found 3 individual suspicious holding each one bag. On seeing the Police, they tried to flee away the Police caught and questioned they confessed that they are caring liquid ganja. The Police apprehended them and seized 10 Kgs sin bag No.1 and 10 Kgs in bag No.2, 5 Kgs in Bag No.3 of ganja and registered the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Ramineni Sudheer, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him 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 their dependents. The Petitioners undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioners would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Mr. NeelotpalGanji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend 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 progress 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. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the 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 the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is that they were found separately in possession of 10.5 Kgs of ganja and 4.5 Kgs of ganja. Against Accused No.1, 10.5 Kgs of ganja was recovered. All these three recoveries are independent and one point of time at separate placed of one Plotform. The Petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 60 days. The Petitioners were arrested on 24.07.2025. So far, five witnesses have been examined; all are official witnesses. Material portion of investigation in so far as Petitioners is concerned is completed. Chances of the Petitioners, threatening the witnesses, hampering the investigation and tampering the evidence may not arise. The Petitioners are permanent residents of R. Udayagiri, Ramagiri, Gajapathi, Odisha State respectively. The Petitioners have got fixed abode. Period of custodial interrogation is completed. 9. Considering the period of detention undergone by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners, and their alleged role played in the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class for Railway-cum- VI Additional Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3shall appear before the learned the Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claims that they do not have passports, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the investigating officer; and v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3shall 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. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9596 OF 2025 23.09.2025 KK