1 APHC010490952025 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: 9732/2025 Between: Pedapudi Venkata Lakshmi Alias Lakshmi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.98 of 2022 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments of the prosecution are that, on 04.05.2022 at about 16:00 hours, at Bypureddipalem bridge, Narsipatnam, and reported at 18:45 hours on the same day, Accused Nos.5 to 7 were apprehended in possession of 798 kgs of dry contraband Ganja packed in 19 PVC plastic bags. The said contraband was being transported in an Eicher van bearing No. AP24TB-9881 from Kasimi Kotturu, where it was loaded by Accused Nos.1 to 3, for delivery to Accused No.4 at Khammam. However, the accused did not disclose the identity of the Ganja supplier. The seizure and arrest were effected under a mediators’ report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, 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 Visakhapatnam and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or 3 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. 4 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. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is that she indulged in dealing with 798 Kgs of Ganja, which is undoubtedly a commercial quantity. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed, but the NSC number is yet to be served. The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 67 days. The role of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has surfaced only on the basis of the confession of Accused No.4, and except for this confession, there is no material available on record to directly incriminate the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are two similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. 9. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is presumed to be innocent until the guilty is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 at para No.7 observed that criminal similar adverse antecedents cannot be basis for refusal of bail. The petitioner is a 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 5 permanent resident of Sunrise Hospital Backside, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, and she has a fixed place of abode. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to the 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 learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Narsipatnam Police Station, Anakapalli, 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. 6 v. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make herself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. 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. Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If she claims that she does not have a passport, she shall 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 KMS 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9732 OF 2025 26.09.2025 KMS