APHC010504232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9909/2025 Between: Sembi Prasad Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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.11 on bail in crime No.306 of 2024 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) read with 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 13.12.2024 one Doddi Kanaka Mahalakshmi who is running Franchise of DTDC Parcel Service gave report to the II Town Police stating that the some boxes were booked in DTDC Parcel Service Office and those boxes were sent to the New Delhi, but those boxes were not claimed by any person there. She further stated that when the boxes were returned to Visakhapatnam Parcel Office, they verified the boxes and found ganja. As such she gave report to the police and the petitioner supplied 192 kgs of ganja to one Mukesh who sent the ganja boxes to New Delhi. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, 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 3 allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if 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. Initially, the Delhi Police arrested accused No.1 and recovered 192 kg of ganja from his possession, which constitutes a commercial quantity. At the time of his apprehension, accused No.1 revealed the involvement of accused No.11, the present petitioner. Based on this information, the Station House Officer of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, apprehended the petitioner and recovered 4.26 kg of ganja from his possession. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner supplied 192 kg of ganja to delhi people/accused No.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has three similar adverse antecedents vide Crime No.73 of 2024 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapantam City, Crime No.302 of 2024 of Malkapuram Police Station and Crime No.246 of 2024 of Crime Branch, Delhi, although he was granted bail in those cases. The petitioner was arrested on 06.08.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 07.08.2025. So far, nine witnesses have been examined, and the investigation is in progress. The investigation is at progressive stage. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the nascent stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant relief at this stage. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date:10.10.2025, S D P 5 6 HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9978 OF 2025 DATE: 10.10.2025 S D P