i ,// IN THE HIGH COURT OF,ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV,Ref:%*±::£ THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAYOF OCTOBER, !{`¥ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ''^i:.t` :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I;l-¥`~-`` CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10328 OF 2025 Betwee n : Bogav"" Govindha Rao, S/o Late Venkataramana, Aged about 26 years, R/o H.No1-220/A1, Dukkavanlpalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, visakhapatnam District, A.P. r` . . .petitioner/Accused 2 1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor ...Respondent/Complainant petition under sections 480 & 483 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 enlarge/release the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein on bail -ln connection with FIR No.14/2025, RamabhadraPuram Police station, on the file of the court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge- special Judge For Trial of Cases under NDPS Actl Vizianagaram. The petition coming On for hearing, upon PeruSlng the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ravi Teja Gude, Advocate for the Petitioner and Of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, the court made the following EZH8as=a=,c=a€ APHCO10531112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (special Origin-aI Jurl-sdjction) THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ` THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL NO: 10328 OF 2025 [3521] Between : 1.BOGAVILLI GOVINDHA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O H.NO. 1-220/A1, DUKKAVANIPALEM vlLLAGE,ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A-P- ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by the public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the petitioner/accused.I 1. RAVI TEJA GUDE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court macle the following: ORDER: The Criminal PetI-lion has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatlya NagarI'k Suraksha sanhlta, 2023 (for-brevity lthe BNSSJ), seeklng to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in crime Nol14 of 2025 of Ramabhadrapuram police station, vizianagaram District, registered against \'- •` -. l the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity fthe NDPS Act'). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 10.02.2025 at 12:00 hours, while the compla'lnant and police personnel were conducting routine vehicle checks at the check post near Kottakki Village Junction, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, an unidentified individual driving a Car bearing registration number AP28DY4509 (originally No.DL8CAPO153) approached from the Ramabhadrapuram side. Upon noticing the police presence, the said individual halted the vehicle approximately 100 meters from the check post and, upon being approached, diverted the vehicle onto a nearby gravel road. After proceeding a short distance, the driver abandoned the veh'lcle near Goddess Durgadevi Temple at Santhathota, Kottakki Junction and absconded from the scene. Subsequent to inspection of the abandoned vehicle it was revealed the presence of approximately 147 kilograms of contraband ganja, suspected to be in transit for illegal distribut'lon. A Mediators' Report was duly prepared and recorded between 12:00 and 14:00 hours on the same day. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Gude Ravi Teja, 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 pr,-ma fac,'e material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. lt is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of-his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irfepa'rable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with arty conditI'On that this Hon'b'e 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 Dukkavanipalem Village, Anand?puram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and there exists no apprehension of hi's absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperatioh in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, end that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. ln view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per oonfra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the pray~er'for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. lt is submitted that the premature enlargement of the petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative I i- Process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner. The prosecution further raises an_ apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or I'ntimidate, 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. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed tO the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petl-tioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dl'smiss the present Criminal PetitI|On. POINT FOR CONSI DERATION 7. In view of the rival submjssions advanced by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorl-al narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: l'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner/ Accused No.2, on perusal of the record is that he had allegedly indulged in dealing with 147 Kgs of ganja with the assistance of other Accused. The Petitioner was arrested 6n 31.03.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 188 days. The PetI-tiOner is a ` Permanent resident Of Dukkavanipalem Village, Anandapuram MandaI, Visakhapatnam District. He-`ha`s` got fixed abode. No application has been filed seeking extension of the remand of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court. So far, 7 witnesses are-examined. Material portion of the investigation in so far as the PetI'tiOner iS COnCerned iS completed. Therefore, chances of the Petitioner to fly away from the clutches of the law may not arise. 9. Section 36A(4) of [the Act' states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 has an indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indl-eating the progress of the I-nVeStigatiOn and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial pe.rio.d. CONCLUSION: 10. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the Petitioner, his alleged role played I-n this Case, and the Period Of detention undergone by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined {o enlarge the Petitioner on bail with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only), with two suretI'eS each for the like sum each to trle satisfaction of the learned JucliciaI MagI-Strafe Of First Class, Salur. ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till cognizance is taken by the learned the Trial -i 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 notcommit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall co-operate 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. lf he claims that he do not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. ll. Accordingly, the CrimI'nal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.SRINIVAS TRAR OFFICEP` s E C l] erREzr€ To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of let class at salur. 2. The Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge -Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Vizianagaram. 3. The Superintendent, Visakhapatnam Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to Sri Ravi Teja Gude, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court ofA.P., Amaravati.[OUT] 7. One spare copy. PSD I- HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATE:09/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10328 of 2025 ALLOWED