<lx I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA;ta CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 9518 OF 2025 N . - Ov X' i *1 $ * s I''. % A \K / -4 'A- t’ Between: Namitha Mondal, W/o.Manoj Mondal, Aged about 37 years, R/o.Munsipara, Barobindha, Char Rajapur, Murshidabad, West Bengal State. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Renigunta Urban Police Station Tirupati District Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS, 2023 (under sections 437 dnd 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973), 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 release the Petitioner on bail in Crime No. 133/2025 the file of the Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati District in the interest of justice. on Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Ms.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following f APHC010484052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9518/2025 Between: Namitha Mondal ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PNAGENDRA REDDY 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.1 on bail in Crime No. 133 of 2025 of Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPSAct'). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 14.05.2025 on credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators rushed at Room No.207, SBS Lodge, Near Railway Station, Ranigunta Town and found the accused in the room along with possession 24.500 kilograms of ganja. Then the police arrested accused and seized 24.500 kilograms of ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, 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. 3. 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 warrantfurther 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 allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that she had indulged in dealing with 24.5 kgs of ganja with the help of other accused, petitioner was arrested The on 15.04.2025. She has been in judicial custody for is permanent resident of Munsipara, the past 181 days. The petitioner i Barobindha, Char Rajapur, Murshidabad, has got fixed abode. The learned Assistant Public West Bengal State. The petitioner Prosecutor submits that learned trial Court seeking for six witnesses are examined. All the Therefore, the question of no remand extension petition was filed before the extension of further remand. So far si witnesses are official witnesses, threatening the witnesses evidence may not arise. The substantial the involvement of the petitioner i petitioner or hampering the investigation or tampering the portion of the investigation in so far IS concerned is completed. CONCLUSION- 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the of allegation levelled against the petitioner, his and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the following The petitioner/Accused No.1 subject to she executing a bond for (Rupees ten thousand only), with two case, nature and gravity alleged role played in this case this Court is inclined stringent conditions; I. shall be enlarged on bail a sum of Rs.20,000/- sureties each for the like s% 5 sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every 2"^^ 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. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make herself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. IV. 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. V. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender her passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If she claim that she do not have a passport, she shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the investigating Officer. VI. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. SD/- G.HELANAIDU STRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// For To, 1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. 2. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tirupati. 3. The Station House Officer, Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati District 4. One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Amaravati [OUT] 6. One spare copy cvss HIGH COURT Dr.YLR,J DATED: 13/10/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9518 of 2025 ALLOWED