APHC010369222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7627/2025 Between: 1. MAJJI GANDHI, S/O. KALYANAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. TAJANGI KORUKONDA VILLAGE, CHINTHAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 10 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 186/2022 of Rolugunta P.S. Anakapalli District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7627/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.10 on bail in Crime.No.186 of 2022 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.10 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c) and Section 25 read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 18.12.2022, on receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolugunta Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Main Road, near Adavi Rajulu Babu Temple, outskirts of K.Naidu Palem Village, Rolugunta Mandal, the police noticed one motor cycle and one car coming towards them upon seeing the police, two persons on the motor cycle and three persons in the car tried to escape. Police apprehended two accused, while other three persons escaped from there, during the investigation the accused, basing on the confession statements, seized 180 Kgs of Ganja under the cover of mediators report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has 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 further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed to grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend 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 progress 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. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the 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 the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. Section 36A(4) of ‘the Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioner/accused No.10 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. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he, along with other accused, allegedly indulged in dealing with 180 KGs of ganja. The alleged offence occurred on 18.12.2022. A P.T. Warrant was issued against the petitioner and was executed on 11.04.2025. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 180 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is one similar adverse antecedent against the petitioner registered for the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. She further submitted that, so far, sixteen witnesses have been examined, and the major portion of the investigation, insofar as it relates to the role of the petitioner, has been completed. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that a petition has been filed seeking extension of remand, before the trial Court and the same is pending for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a period of 180 days in the judicial custody had expired on 05.10.2025. The petition for extension of remand was filed before the trial Court on 07.10.2025. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana in Suresh Shyamrao Pawar v. Union of India1, at paragraph No.15 while issuing certain guidelines in guideline No.16 held that an application seeking for extension of the remand shall necessarily be filed at the earliest at least by 160th day. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner/Accused No.10 is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others 2 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that criminal antecedents should not be taken into consideration while considering the 1 2022 (2) ALD (crl.) 348 (TS) 2 2020 (1) SCC 648 application for grant of bail. The petitioner/Accused No.10 is a permanent resident of Tajangi Korukonda Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitharamaraju District. CONCLUSION: 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.10 on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.10 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.10 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. iii. The petitioner/Accused No.10 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.10 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.10 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.10 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. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08th October, 2025 RKS