lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMA FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10222 OF 2025 Betwee n : Thavaraja Ramar, S/o. Ramar,Aged about 24 years,R/o. D.No. 3-99, Kolinjikadu,Murugumpalayam, lduvampalayam,Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu State. Petitioner/Accused AND The State ofAndhra Pradesh, SHO, GRPS Guntakal, Ongole Police station.Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati. Respondent/Complainant E= petition under sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, (New Sections 480 &ZT83 of BNSS, 2023) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant him bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit directing their enlargement in Crime No. 8O of 2025 of Ongole Police Station, GRP Guntakal and to pass such further orders deemed fit in the interest of Justice. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRl. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER £____ APHCO10515582025 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY QF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10222 OF 2025 [3521] Between: 1.THAVARAJA RAMAR, S/O. RAMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. , D.NO. 3-99, KOLINJIKADU, MURUGUMPALAYAM, IDUVAMPALAYAM, TIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 'SHO, GRPS Guntakal, Ongole Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, H'lgh Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati. ...-RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity tthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accusec] on bail in Crime No.80 of 2025 of Ongole police Station, GRP Guntakal, -registerecl against the Petitioner/Accused .RE herein for the offence punishable under section 8(c) read w,-th 20(b)(ii)(B) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for brevity tthe NDPS Act)). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that on 08.08.2025 at about 17.45 hrs, on receipt of credible information, the Police along with mediators and while checkI-ng rear Side general compartment in Train No.17479 (Puri-Tirupati Express) after crossing Ongole R.S, found a black and blue colour handbag containing 2.800 grams of ganja in 3 plastic covers in possession of the Petitioner/ Accused, worth of Rs. 5,000/-for sale and the Accused admitted that he purchased the same at Bhubaneswar Railway Station premises, Odisha Sta{f:. The same was seized by the police and registered the above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, 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 prJ'ma faC,-e material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. and Proper tO impose While considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. lt is further submitted that the Petitioner 'ls a permanent resident Of Kolinjikadu, Murugumpalayam, lduvamPalayam, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation in the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. lt is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and 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 cot,fro, Ms, P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, w'lth 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 ongo-lng inve-stigative 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 intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the eviclentiary foundation of the Case. It is also contendec! that there exists a Ep IEBE! palpable and ,mmlnent rlsk of the petltlOner abSCOndlng, thereby rfuStratlng ## the due process of law. 6. ln view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the I'nVeStigatiOn, it iS Submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and ,it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. ln view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. lt is alleged that the Petitioner, who is sole Accused has indulged in possession and transportation of 2.8 Kgs of ganja, lt is not a commercial quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 09.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for about past 60 days. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Kolinjikadu, Murugumpalayam, lduvampalayam, Tiruppur, Tamilnadu. He has got fixed abode. There are no criminal similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. so far four witnesses are examined. They are all official witnesses. Substantial portion of investigation in far as alleged role of the Petitioner is concerned is completed. Chances of the Petitioner either threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence or hampering the inves{igat'lon may not arise. CONCLUSION: 9. Considering the 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 shall be enlarged on bail subJ-eCt tO his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1O,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ii. The PetI-tiOner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iii. The Petitioner/Accused 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. t| iv. The Petitioner/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts c;i the case so as to dissuacle him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. T`''': I T ''.'T= +/ !=EREEpEEH _ ____ v. The Petitioner/Accused shall surrender his passport, if any, to the I'nVeStigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have a passport, they shall submit an affI-davit tO that effect to the Investigating officer. 10. Accordingly, the criminal Petition is allowed. SD/-B.PRASAD RAO DEPUT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTl FFICER To] 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 2. The Superintendent, Nellore Central Jail, Nellore 3. The Station House officer, Ongole Police station, GRP Guntakal 4. One CC to SRl. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDYAdvocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P[OUT] 6. One spare copy _ n\ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 10/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10222 of 2025 ALLOWED •l a l\Tus