APHC010508752025 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: 9991 OF 2025 Between: 1. DEEPATI PRASANTH MANOHAR, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 54-121-65, BHANU NAGAR, HB COLONY NEAR KRSIHAN COLLEGE, MADDILAPALEM, VISAKAHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, MVP Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K KRISHNA RAO 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.5 on bail in Crime No. 10/2-25 of MVP Police Station, VisakhapatnamDistrict, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.5herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) read with 8(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 04.01.2025, the Petitioner was supplied 2 Kgs of ganja to Accused 1 and 4, who were caught redhandedly, while they were possessing said ganja on that day. Based on confessional statement of Accused No.2, the above case was registered. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri K. Krishna Rao, 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 HB Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnamand 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.5, on perusal of the record is that he was indulged in dealing with the possession of 2 Kgs of ganja. The Petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 38 days. Learned counsel for the Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no similar criminal antecedents was reported against him. The Petitioner No.5 is a permanent resident of HB Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. He has got fixed abode. Therefore, chances of the Petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. 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.5shall 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 IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall appear before the Station House Officer, MVPPolice Station, Visakhapatnam 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.5shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.5shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 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.5 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 Petitioner/Accused No.5shall 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. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 KK