Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58800 (AP)

Bisanadh Bisoyi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/11385/2025 · 2025-11-27

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010585512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 11384 & 11385 of 2025 Crl.P.No.11384 of 2025 Between: 1.GENNU BISOYI, S/O RAMU, 41 YEARS, R/O KUMBIRIPADA VILLAGE,MAKAVARAM PANCHAYAT, MUNCHINGIPUT MANDAL, A.S.R. DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Amaravatithrough Mundiingiput PS., A.S.R. District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.LANDA JOGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.11385 of 2025 Between: 1.BISANADH BISOYI, S/O GAASI, 34 YEARS, R/O KUMBIRIPADA VILLAGE,MAKAVARAM PANCHAYAT, MUNCHINGIPUT MANDAL, A.S.R. DISTRICT 2 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.R, Amaravatithrough Mundiingiput P.S., A.S.R. District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as they arise out of same crime but the Petitioners are different. 2. The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 on bail in Crime No.36 of 2024 of Munchingiput Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3 4. The allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 are that they had indulged in dealing with 860 Kgs of Ganja in 43 gunny bags. It is undoubtedly a commercial and colossal quantity. The Petitioners were surrendered on 02.06.2025. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 179 days. An application was filed seeking for extension of remand before the learned Trial Court but that application was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1199 of 2025 by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. Chargesheet was not filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days. This is the second bail application. There are no adverse similar criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioners. Petitioners are permanent residents of Kumbiripada Village, Makavaram Panchayat, Munchingiput Mandal, A.S.R.District. They have got fixed abode. If the Petitioners are enlarged on bail there is no likelihood of them absconding or evading the process of law. Chances of witnesses absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence may not arise. If they are enlarged on bail with stringent conditions, they may not evade from the process of law. 5. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act’ states that if the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 have an indefeasible right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 on bail. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall be enlarged on bail subject to them executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu. ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future. iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 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 5 dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the investigating officer. If they claim that they does not have passport, they shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.11.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by today B/o VTS