IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAy^p . TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ■'•■v mm fej-T. i "‘rtic iPRESENT: '•‘i-Stoi THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4604 OF 2025 Between: Hasan Sibath, S/o. Kasim, aged about 30 years, R/o. No.31 Anemahal Village, Anemahal Post, Hasan District, Karnataka State. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C and Section 483(1) of BNSS, is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l Addl. District & Sessions Judge - Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act. Visakhapatnam in CrI.M.P. No.584/2025 in Or. No. 26/2025 dated 18.03.2025 by considering the situation of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 as “Petitioner/Accused No.1 to be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with single surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l Addl. District & Sessions Judge - Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatham” instead of “Petitioner/Accused No.1 to be released bail on executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and permit the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs. 10,000/- with single surety instead of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties. on The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s Balabhadruni Manohar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the Court made the following APHC010217982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4604/2025 Between: Hasan Sibath ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 483(1 )(b) of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner/AI, seeking modification of the conditions in the bail order vide CrI.M.P.No.584/2025 dated 18.3.2025 on the file learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and permit the petitioner to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties instead of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties. 2. The above said crime was registered against the petitioner/AI herein and others in Cr.No.26/2025 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b(ii)(B), 25 r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 2 Without going into the merits of the case, this criminal petition is filed only seeking modification of conditions in CrI.M.P.No.584/2025 on 18.3.2025 on the file of learned Metropolitan 3. the bail order in Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is submitted that despite grant of bail by the Metropolitan Sessions 4. Judge, Visakhapatnam in CrI.M.P.No.584/2025, petitioner/AI could not furnish He further contends that the sureties for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties. petitioner belongs to a poor family and the petitioner is the only person to look It is further submitted that after his family members by doing coolie work, more than one month time elapsed after granting bail to the petitioner and the petitioner’s family members could not comply with the order by furnishing sureties. In the said facts of the case, petitioner requests to consider his case on humanitarian grounds. Learned counsel relied on a decision reported in SMWP (Criminal) No.4/2021 dated 31.01.2023 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is observed that “if the bail bonds are not furnished within one 5. month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo-motu take up conditions of ball require the case and consider whether the modification/relaxa tion It seems that the Court who granted bail to the petitioner in this crime has not taken such steps, thereby forced the petitioner to approach this Court. There is nothing on record to show that the said submissions are incorrect, as such this Court is inclined to modify the bail order. 6. 3 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his execution of self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for like sum each. It is hereby made clear that the release of the petitioner/A1 on his execution of self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for like such each only modified. The remaining conditions imposed against the petitioner/A1 shall remain unaltered. IS qd/. K- KASIRAO ACHAW ! assistant rjiJRAr SECTION, OFFICER Ai //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional District & Sessions under NDPS Act, Judge-Special Judge^ for Trial of Offences Visakhapatnam. IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CO to Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, Advocate [OPUC] CCS to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P., 6. Two Amaravati.[OUT] 7. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED:06/05/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.4604 of 2025 [ ALLOWED •FV 1^5 O’' m; Co/' oa >x VO ■t