APHC010507252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9956/2025 Between: Uyyala Sai Charan ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PULAPALLI BABJI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No.2 on bail in crime No. 167 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 02.09.2025 on credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators rushed to RTC Complex, Narsimpatnam Town, Anakapalli District and found the accused along with 6.470 grams of ganja. Then the police arrested accused and seized 6.470 grams ganja from them. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Pulapalli Babji, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking 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 the dependents of the petitioner. 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 permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation thus far and assure 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 3 any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms.Akhila 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 do 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 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 learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 4 ANALYSIS: 8. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused No.2 was indulged in possession and transportation of 6.470 grams of ganja along with other accused. The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 35 days. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no similar criminal adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is permanent resident of Pedapadu Mandal, Eluru District. The petitioner has got fixed abode. So far four witnesses are examined. All the witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, the question of petitioner threatening the witnesses or hampering the investigation or tampering the evidence may not arise. The substantial portion of the investigation in so far the involvement of the petitioner is concerned is completed. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case, and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam. 5 ii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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.2 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.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. vi. The petitioner/Accused No.2 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. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claim that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:07.10.2025, S D P 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9956 OF 2025 DATE: 07.10.2025 S D P