APHC010496572025 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: 9833/2025 Between: Gollapalli Ravindra Alias Ravi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KOPPISETTI PARVATI DEVI 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Cr.No.49 of 2025 of Ramapachodavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 09.05.2025 at about 8.00 a.m., on receipt of credible information about illicit possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators rushed to Tar Road (Maredumilli-Rampachodavaram Road), Near Gandhi Nagaram Bus Stand, Outskirts of Rampachodavaram Village, Rampachodavaram Mandal and accused in possession of ganja of 7 kgs. Then the Sub-Inspector of Police seized the said ganja. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Koppisetti Paarvathi Devi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioners to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioners are the sole earning members of their families and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioners 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 Petitioners are permanent residents of Kanuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District and there exists no apprehension of their absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to 3 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. Akila 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners are not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 4 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are that they were indulged in possession of 7 kgs of ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 09.05.2025. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 135 days. The petitioners are permanent residents of Kanuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioners have got fixed abode. So far six witnesses are examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the question of petitioners threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioners, their alleged roles played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), each with two sureties each for the 5 like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. 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 the learned the Trial Court. iii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. 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. vi. 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. vii. 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 a passport, they shall submit an affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 6 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KK 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9833 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025 KK