APHC010387372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7943/2025 Between: Praveen Raj Purohit ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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 petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of Vijayawada I-Town Police Station, NTR District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 2 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 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 21.01.2025 on receipt of information regarding ganja transportation, the Inspector of I-Town Police Station went to Prince Trading Shop in Palle Veedhi at 2.00 a.m., and found accused Nos.1 and 2 who were standing by the side of Swift Dzire car bearing No.GJ-04-Q-4115 escaped and on verification of the dicky of that car police found 101 kgs of ganja in 3 bags in that dicky and thereafter with the help of CCTV footage ascertained the names of escaped persons as accused Nos.1 and 2 and caught them on 23.01.2025 and on 18.03.2025, the accused No.3 was caught near the same place and on his confession recovered 20 kgs of ganja from his rented premises and produced him before Court and was remanded to judicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Devasri Roshan, 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 3 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 Deepa Village, Jalora District, Rajasthan State 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 189 days. The charge sheet has not yet been filed. The statutory period of 180 days completed. 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. 4 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. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that there are three adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. Out of them, two antecedents are involving to ‘the NDPS Act’. The prosecution has no information about the filing of remand extension petition. 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?” 5 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner as seen from the record is that he had indulged in dealing with 101 kgs of ganja. It is a commercial quantity. The prosecution submits that there is no information about filing of petition seeking for extension of remand of the petitioner before the learned trial Court. Section 36A(4) of ‘the Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioner/accused No.1 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. 9. The Period of custodial interrogation is completed. The petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 189 days, he was arrested on 18.03.2025. The petitioner has got fixed abode. The Petitioner is permanent resident of Deepa Village, Jalora District, Rajasthan State. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the question of petitioner threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. 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 6 undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada City. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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 petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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. 7 vi. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do 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: 23.09.2025 S D P 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7943 of 2025 Date:23.09.2025 S D P