v> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBEF^^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE : PRESENT: - THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO -^ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos r'SZeO & 9023 of 2025 % .\- if I'i «1. y'' m V\U 5 /// ' ■VV v-"’ /0' •s Criminal Petition No.676Q of Between: Majji Gandhi, S/o. Kalyanam, aged about 24 years, R/o. Tajangi Korukond Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. a ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court c Andhra Pradesh f ...Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C/ Under Sections 480 & 48^ ef BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum o grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 f on bail pending disposal o Crime No.62/2p25 of Narsipatnam Town P.S., now Anakapalli District. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9^23 OF 2C\9R Between: Vantala HarTbabu, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, , Korukonda Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District aged about 20 years, R/o. Tajangi ...Petitioner/Accused No.3^ AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by itS'-PUblic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C/ Under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 6^025 of Narsipatnam Town P.S., now Anakapalli District, v. The Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petitions and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Advocate for the Petitioner in both the petitions, and of PUBLIC PROSECljfoR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following APHC010328662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] 0^ TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 6760 & 9023 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6760/2025 Between: Majji Gandhi, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSE D AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accueed: 1.BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9023/2025 Between: Vantala Haribabu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSEt) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition Nos.6760 and 9023 of 2025 have been Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ‘the Cr.P.C.’) Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioners/accus ed filed, under 1973 (for brevity Suraksha Nos.2 and 3 respectively, for granting bail in connection with Crime No.62 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under 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. These two Criminal Petition Nos.6760 and 9023 of 2025 disposed of by way of this common order are accused in the same crime. are heard and as the petitioners in these petitions CASE OF THE PROSECUTION- 3. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on credible information about illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff and on 22.03.2025, 3 mediators rushed near APR School, Peddaboddepalli and conducted vehicle checking. The police noticed one auto coming from Peddaboddepall i towanJs I Tallapalem Junction and on seeing the police, the auto driver stopped aiiid turned back the auto and trying to escape. Then the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff apprehended the accused and seized 100 kgs of ganja. CONTENTIONSOF THE COUNSELFOR THE PETITIONER: 4. Mr. Balabhadruni Manohar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking them to the commissic n of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families and their arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to their dependents. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition th^t this Cpurt may impose while granting bail to the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioners have cooperated with the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, anid if any condition is imposed while granting the bail. Petitioners would not violate 5. it; and it is urged to allow the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners 4 further submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 183 days. No charge sheet was filed. The statutory period of 180 days was completed and it is urged for enlarge the petitioners on bail. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 6. Per contra, Ms.P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the Petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in. non cooperation from the Petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the Petitioner, 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 Petitioner absconding 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 Petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bailand it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no information about the filing of remand extension petition by the Prosecutor concerned before the learned trial Court. 5 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail? ANALYSIS: 8. • The allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 that they have allegedly dealing with 100 kgs of ganja. All mught it is commercial quantity. The petitioners have been in judicial custody beyond the statute y period of 180 days. They were arrested on 22.03.2025 and have remained judicial custody for the past 183 days. The petitioners are permanent residents of Tafangi Korukonda Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. They have got fixed abode. All the witnesses in the case are official witnesses. The material part of the investigation has been completed. Therefore, the possibility of the petitioners threatening the witnesses, hampering the investigation, or tampering with the evidence may not arise. n CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against thb petitioners, their alleged roles played in this case, and the period of detentioh undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge th3 6 petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.6760 of 2025 and the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9023 of 2025 on bail with the following stringent conditions: The petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.6760 of 2025 and the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.9023 of 2025 shall be enlarged on bail subject to they executing a bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I; Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under ‘the NDPS Act’, Visakhapatnam. I. ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 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. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. III. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. IV. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 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. V. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person VI. 7 .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. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition Nos.6760 and 9023 of 10. 2025 are allowed. SD/- M.PRABHAKARA RAO ASSiSTANT^^STRAR SE^flON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam DistricT 2. The Superintendent, Central Jail' District 3. The Station House Officer, Anakapalli District 4. One CC to SRI. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Advocate 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECOfoR [OUT] 6. One spare copy for Tria of Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Narsipatnam Town Police Station [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh PSR HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED:23/09/2025 BAIL ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos : 6760 & 9023 of 2025 ALLOWED