APHC010496282025 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: 9774 OF 2025 Between: 1. KANTLAM VINOD, S/O. BALARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. NSR COLONY, NAIDUPETA TOWN SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, .Amaravati. SHO, Naidupeta Urban Police Station, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No. 274 of 2025 of Naidupeta Urban Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2herein for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with20(b)(ii)(B), 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 26.08.2025 at 11.30 hrs the Police conducted raid at the forest of Sreenivasapuram, Naidupet Mandal, wherein the Accused No.1 to 6 have been in possession of cannabis leaves weighing 11.5 Kgs and the same was seized and registered the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of …… and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner.The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 6. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, on perusal of the record is that he was found in possession of 2 Kgs of ganja. Altogether 11.5 Kgs was found in possession of all the Accused. The Accused No.1 to 6 were arrested 26.08.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 31 days. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no similar adverse criminal antecedents recorded against the Petitioner. So far, four witnesses have been examined. All the official witnesse4s. Chances of either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. The Petitioner is permanent resident of NSR Colony, Naidupeta Town, SPSR Nellore District. He has got fixed abode. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been suffering from cancer, to that effect, he has filed certain Medical Records, wherein the Petitioner has been suffering from left renal vein. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall be enlarged on bail subject to hisexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall appear before the Station House Officer, Naidupeta UrbanPolice Station, SPSR Nellore District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial Court. iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall 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. vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KK