APHC010537312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10456/2025 Between: 1.DEEPAK KUMAR PODDAR, S/O DULAL KUMAR PODDAR AGE 32 YEARS, R/O DP CAMP, SUNABEDA TOWN, KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through Station House officer, Salur Rural P.S, Visakhapatnam Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.RAMINENI SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.1 on bail in Crime No.40 of 2025 of Salur Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Sri Ramineni Sudheer, 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 DP Camp, Sunabeda Town, Koraput District, Odisha State and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. ThePetitioner 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 submits that there are no adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. The 3 petitioner was arrested 33 days after the registration of the FIR. Moreover, the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of 'the BNSS.' Furthermore, the notices issued under Section 47 and 48 of 'the BNSS.,' did not specify the grounds for the Petitioner's arrest. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. 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 articulates a credible 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. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that one Geena, the wife of Behara Kumar, is the owner of the vehicle that was engaged by the petitioner to transport the contraband. The petitioner was driving the vehicle, which was transporting 183 kgs of ganja. It is also stated that the statutory requirement of informing the grounds of arrest, not only to the petitioner but 4 also to his relatives, was duly complied with. In view of the gravity and nature 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. 7. As per the record, the alleged offence occurred on 07.05.2025.However, the petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2025, which is more than one month after the registration of the FIR. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in which 183 kgs of ganja were allegedly transported. The seized contraband constitutes a commercial quantity. 8. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS 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 183 days. He was arrested on 10.06.2025. The petitioner has got fixed abode. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1on bail with the following stringent conditions. 5 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing 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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District, 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.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 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. vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.12.2025 VTS