APHC010495032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9801/2025 Between: 1. SIMMA MANIKANTA ALIAS MANI ALIAS BONDALU, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O NEAR KANCHARAPALEM RYRHU BAZDR, SREENAGAR STREET, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SIMMA SUMANTH, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NEAR KANCHARAPALEM RYRHU BAZAR, SREENAGAR STRDET, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Amaravati through its Station House Officer, Kancharapalem PS, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 2 on bail in crime No. 303 of 2025 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 19-08-2025 at about 1 p.m., near Nirman Park, Railway Track, Behind K.V. School, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 2.7 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri P.Raj Kumar, 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 to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families 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. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have 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 so far and assure continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that 3 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. 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 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. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2, as seen from the record, is that they along with other accused indulged in dealing with 2.7 K.Gs. of Ganja. They were arrested on 19-08-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 39 days. So far, five witnesses are examined. All they are official witnesses. Chances of the petitioners threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation would not arise. Substantial part of investigation, insofar as the alleged role of the petitioners is concerned, is completed. The petitioners are permanent residents of Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. They have got fixed abode. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are seven adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner-accused No. 1. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner-accused No. 2. Be that as it may, the petitioners are presumed to be innocents until the guilt is proved. Mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner is not a sole ground for rejecting the request for grant of regular or pre-arrest bail as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others1. 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 enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: 1 2020 (11) SCC 648 5 (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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrte of I Class, Visakhapatnam; (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 6 (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 petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 26-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9801 OF 2025 DATE: 26-09-2025 JSK