APHC010497372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9772/2025 Between: 1. ROHITH, S/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. ARGUPUR, SAFIPUR SUB-DISTRICT, UNNAO DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH STATE. 2. NURUDDIN, S/O. ISLAMUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. ASAYAS VILLAGE, UNNAO DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners- accused Nos. 1 and 2 on bail in crime No. 290 of 2025 of KasibuggaPolice Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 10-09-2025 at about 6 p.m., in Railway Station Road, near Saibaba Temple, Palasa, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found and arrested while they were in possession of 10.630 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocentsand havebeen falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime.It is contended that the petitioners are the sole breadwinnersoftheir family and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioners. The petitioners undertaketo abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioners havepermanent place of residence and there is no likelihood ofthem absconding or evading the process of law.The petitioners havecooperated with the investigation so far and assurecontinued cooperation in future proceedings.It is also urged that 3 the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitionerswould not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined.It is submitted that enlargement of the petitionerson bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioners. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioners, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice.It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitionersabsconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioners donot deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2, as seen from the record, is that they had indulged in transportation and possession of 10.630 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 10-09-2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 16 days. The petitioners are permanent residents of Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh State. They have got fixed abode. So far, five witnesses have been examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Material portion of investigation, insofar as the role of the petitioners in the instant case, is completed. Chances of the petitioners either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the investigation may not arise since all the witnesses are official witnesses. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on bail with the following stringent conditions: (i) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing each a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa; 5 (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 learned trial Court; (iii) The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future; (iv) 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; (v) 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; and (vi) 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 passport, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. _______________________ Dr.Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:25-09-2025, JSK 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9772 OF 2025 DATE: 25-09-2025 JSK