APHC010070602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 213/2025 Between: Chinthamneedi Raja ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Revision is filed by the petitioner/A.4 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to modify the condition laid in the impugned Order, dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1049 of 2024 (Crime No.96 of 2024 of Padmanabham Police Station) passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam (for short, “Sessions Judge”). 2. The respondent/State registered a case in Crime No.96 of 2024 of Padmanabham Police Station under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)r/w. Section 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioner and other accused and seized the 2 vehicle i.e. Maruthi Dzire bearing Registration No. AP 39 SX 1133 in connection with the above crime. 3. The petitioner, who is the A.4 in the above crime, filed a petition before the Sessions Judge, seeking interim custody of vehicle i.e. Maruthi Dzire bearing Registration No. AP 39 SX 1133. The learned Sessions Judge vide Order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1049 of 2024, allowed the interim custody petition, by imposing some conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/A.4 preferred the present revision for modification of the conditions. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.4 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State. 5. Perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 submits that while allowing the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1049 of 2024, the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.6,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, besides that, the petitioner being the A.4 was also directed to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner is unable to furnish the bank guarantee for the said amount. Moreover, the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, earning a livelihood through daily labour. Due to financial constraints, the petitioner is unable to provide a bank guarantee for the specified amount. 7. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) with one surety for the like sum. In view of the said submissions, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- may not be required. As such, this Court views that the direction given to the petitioner/A.4 to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) is not at all required. 3 8. In the said facts of the case, the condition imposed to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) is hereby relaxed in the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1049 of 2024 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge- Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam. The remaining conditions set forth in the impugned order shall remain unchanged. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 02.04.2025. MS 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.213 OF 2025 Date: 02.04.2025 MS