IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR, FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERi TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9519 OF 2025 X Between: Kola Babu Rao @ Chinna Babu, s/o Dharaiah aged about 43 yeacs, r/o Thaticherlamotu Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District .. .Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Podili Police Station, Prakasam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS 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 enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in connection with FIR No. 142 of 2025 of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Advocate for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent, and the Court made the following ORDER: 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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 petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Cr.No.142 of 2025 of Podili Police Station, Prakasam District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.6 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2025 at about 11.00 hours, at the house of Accused No.1 in ST Colony, Podili Town, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were found involved in procuring and selling ganja. Accused No.1 used to procure ganja from Accused No.2 through Accused No.3 at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per kg and sell it to consumers and also to Accused No.6. On the request of Accused No.1 for a larger quantity. Accused No.2, along with Accused Nos.3 to 5, went to Odisha, procured 8 kgs of ganja, packed it in separate covers to evade police checks, and brought it to the house of Accused No.1. Accused No.6 also visited the said house to collect 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.PNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 ganja from Accused No.1. Meanwhile, on receipt of credible information, the Inspector of Police, Podili Circle, along with mediators, conducted a raid, apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 6, and during interrogation, they confessed their involvement. A total of 8.065 kgs of ganja and the mobile phones of Accused Nos.1 to 5 were seized under a mediator’s report, and all the accused were arrested. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and he 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. 3. 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 thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial 4. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 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, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enla,rgement 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: 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: 7. Whether the petitioner/Accused No. 6 is entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.6 is that he, along with the other accused, was found in possession and transportation of 8.3 kgs of ganja. The petitioner was individually found in possession of 1.00 kg of ganja. He was arrested on 12.08.2025 and he has been judicial custody for the past 38 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that, so far, five witnesses have been examined, and the major portion of the investigation, insofar as it relates to the role of the petitioner, has been completed. It is further submitted that there altogether 41 cases registered against the petitioner, all under ‘the IPC’, and that no NDPS cases have been registered against him. in are 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner/Accused No.6 is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.R and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal antecedents should not be taken into consideration while considering the 1 others 1 2020 (11) see 648 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.RNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 application for grant of bail. The petitioner/Accused No.6 is a permanent resident of Thaticherlamotu Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. CONCLUSION: 10. 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 the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail with the following stringent conditions; (i) The petitioner/Accused No.6 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 Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Podili; (ii) The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall appear before the Station Flouse 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.6 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station Hotr'se Officer concerned; Dr. YLR, J CrLRNo.9519 of 2025 Dated 19.09.2025 The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; The petitioner/Accused No.6 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; The petitioner/Accused No.6 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 The petitioner/Accused No.6 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. (iv) (V) (Vi) (vii) an 11. SDI- B.PRASAD RAO ASSIS TANt\REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For SECTION OFFICER To 1. The S.H.O., Podili Police Station, Prakasam District. 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole. 3. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial First Magistrate Court, Podili. 4. One CC to SRI. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 19/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9519 of 2025 ALLOWED t’