APHC010498512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9806/2025 Between: JAYA ALIMULLA SARDAR, W/O ALIMULLA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O ROOM NO.56, BUILD-R-10, GULMOHAR CHS, AJGOVNKAR PLOT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9806 of 2025 Dated 03.11.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime.No.248 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, NTR District, Vijayawada, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2025 at about 07:00 hours, at PF No.6, Train No.18519 LTT Express (B4 Coach) at Vijayawada Railway Station, the police, acting on credible information, apprehended the accused in possession of ganja. On interrogation, they confessed that due to financial difficulties, they were introduced by one Lakshmi Shankar Natekar to a person named Murthy, who offered Rs.20,000/- each for transporting ganja from Visakhapatnam. Pursuant to the plan, they traveled from Mumbai on 28.07.2025, reached Visakhapatnam on 29.07.2025, and were taken by one Nagesh (sent by 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9806 of 2025 Dated 03.11.2025 Murthy) to Simhachalam and later to Pithapuram, where Nagesh handed them four bags containing ganja-16 kgs to A-1 and 14 kgs to A-2. On reaching Vijayawada, they attempted to flee on noticing police checking. The accused were apprehended, and a total of 30 kgs of ganja, worth Rs.1,50,000/-, was seized in the presence of mediators. 3. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 59 years, a blind woman, and a beggar at the railway station. Though she has not committed any offence, it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that there was a meeting of minds between the petitioner and another lady who was found in possession of 14 kgs of ganja, along with one person who accompanied them. The petitioner herself was in possession of 16 kgs of ganja. Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ would squarely apply to this case, and it was urged to dismiss the bail application as the investigation is still at nascent stage. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9806 of 2025 Dated 03.11.2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.1 was found in possession of 16 kgs of ganja along with Accused No.2, who was in possession of 14 kgs of ganja. Both of them were travelling together on the train. The petitioner is aged about 59 years, a blind woman, and a beggar. It is also seen from the record that the petitioner and the other accused were accompanied by another person. Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ would squarely apply to the present case. So far, only three witnesses have been examined. The petitioner was arrested on 31.07.2025 and she has been in judicial custody for the past 95 days. The total contraband involved in this case is 30 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. As the investigation is still at nascent stage, the request for grant of bail to the petitioner/Accused No.1 is not found convincing or reasonable. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9806 of 2025 Dated 03.11.2025 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 03.11.2025 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.9806 of 2025 Dated 03.11.2025 22 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9806 of 2025 Date: 03.11.2025 RSI