APHC010507382025 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: 9966 OF 2025 Between: 1. JAFAR YUSUF QURESH, S/O YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O ROOM NO-2, SHRAMIK NAGAR SOCIETY,BHARATH NAGAR. WIRELESS ROAD, JUHU GALLI,RAFIQ KIRANA SHOP, ANDHERI,WEST MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA STATE 2. ANNU KUMARI ALIAS DIVYA SINGH RAJPOOT, D/O DUMPA CHIRANJEEVI SIDDHI TIRUMALESH ALIAS SHIV SAGAR,AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D.NO 7-1-62/A,FLAT NO 511, B-BLOCK, AMEER ESTATE,SR NAGAR, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. ABDUS SALEEM 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 No. 1 and 2 on bail in Crime No. 50 of 2025 of Vizianagaram Police Station, GRP VijayawadaDistrict, registered against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)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 22.03.2025 at 13.123 hrs, on receipt of credible information, the Vizianagaram RP Station Police while checking the platform of Vizianagaram RS at that time they caught two accused at the northern side of Plotform No.1, the Accused were found in possession of ganja with two back pack bags and two hand bags with an intention to transport the same to Mumbai Railway Station for handing over to Wasim of Mumbai. These bags contained 16 packets, all were wrapped in brown coloured tape, weighing 31 Kgs, valued at Rs. 1,55,000/- The same was seized and registered the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. SriAbdus Saleem, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitionersare innocents 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 Petitionersare the sole earning members of their respective family and that their incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioners undertake 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 Andheri, West Mumbai, Maharastra State and Ameer Estate, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabadand there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioners have 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 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 Petitionersare 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 Petitionersare entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. This is second bail application, seeking enlarging the Petitioners on bail. This Court on earlier occasion in Criminal Petitioner No. 7717 of 2025, dated 30.07.2025. The Petitioners were arrested on 21.03.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 185 days. Statutory period of 180 days is completed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no information about the extension of the remand of the Petitioners. 9. Section 36A(4) of ‘the Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the Petitioners/ Accused No.1 and 2 has an indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioners, theiralleged role 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 No. 1 and 2shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iii. The Petitioners/Accused No. 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. iv. The Petitioners/Accused No. 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. v. The Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 shall surrender theirpassports, if any, to the investigating officer. If theyclaim that theydo not have passports, theyshall 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