lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10127 OF 2025 Between: Arumugam Kandasamy, S/o. Kandasamy, aged about 53 years,R/o. D. No.56, Netaji Main Road, MeenambaIPuram, Madurai, Tamil Nadu State. .... Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. .... Respondent petition under section 437 '& 4`39 of Cr.P.C and U/s. 480 & 483 of BNSS is filed, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 73/2024 of Golugonda P.S. Anakapalli District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SR! GOLLAPALL! MAHESWARA RAG Ac!vocate for the Petitioner, Assistant public Prosecutor for the respondent and the Court made the following. ORDER +` Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.10127 of 2025 Dated 09.10_2025 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 lthe BNSS'), seeking to enlarge the Pet,'tioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.73 of 2024 of Golugonda Police Station, Anakapalli District, was registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity fthe NDPS `Act]). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.2024, on receipt of credible information regarding the illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Golugonda Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to Yarrannapalem Check Police, Golugonda Mandal and conducted vehicle checking. The Police noticed one person coming towards them and on seeing the police, the said person tried to escape. During the investigation, the accused No.2 disclosed his address particulars, and based on his confession statement, the police seized 10.00 kgs of ganja under the cover of a mediator's report. The petitioner was implicated as Accusecl No.3 in the said crime based on the confession of Accused No.2. Hence, the report. EtI ~ '_i--// CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.No.10127 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2025 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking him to the commission of the crime. lt is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. 4. lt is further submitted that the petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The Petitioner has cooperated With the investigation thus far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. lt is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant further custodial detention, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the Petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per coJ7fra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed to grant of bail and prosecution further apprehend that the Petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. lt is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding and evacling the clue process of Dr_ YLR, I Crl.P.No.1O127 of 2025 Dated 09.10.2O25 law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the progress of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner does 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 the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. ln the light of the case of the p.rosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: "Whether the Petitioner -IS entitled for grant of bail?" ANALYSIS: 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he was allegedly indulged in dealing with 10.00 kgs of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. The offence occurred on 28.03.2024. The petitioner was arrested on execution of a P.T. warrant on 01.09.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 40 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Meenambal Puram, Madurai, Tamil Nadu State, and he has got fixed abode. So far, five witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official witnesses. The material portion of the investigation, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is completed.. The chances of the petitioner .tyflf3T£* Dr_ YLR, I CrI.P.No.10127 of 2025 Dc,ted O9. I a. 2O25 threatening the witnesses, hampering the investigation, or tampering with the evidence may not arise. 9. Considering the period of detention undergone by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, the nature and gravI-ty Of allegations levelled against the Petitioner, and his alleged role played in the case, this court is i'nclined {o enlarge the Petitioner/accused No.3 on bail with the following stringent conditions: - -..i. i. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to he executing a personal 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 I Additional District and Sessions Judge- Special Judge for Trial of Offences unde+ NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapa{nam District. ii. The petitioner/Accused No.3 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.3 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the station House Officer concernecI. i,> . Dr. YLR, I crI ~P-NDO;tleOd1::.olfO:20o2255 t€1 iv. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. v. The petitioner/Accused No.3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer I'n further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. vi. The PetitI-Oner/Accused No.3 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petl'tion is allowed. SD/-I. SRINIVASA RAO //TRUECOPY// ASSIS#fsTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Addl. D,-strict & sessions Judge-SPI. Judge for Trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, visakhapatnam District. 2. The superlntenden{, central Jal', v[sakhapatnam, visakhapatnam District. 3. The Stall-on House officer, Golugonda p.s. AnakapalII-DI-StrI'Ct. 4. Oneccto 5. Twoccsto [OUT] sRl. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate [opuc] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court ofAndhra pradesh 6. One spare G®py ksr - HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:09/10/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.10127 of 2025 ALLOWED