``ts:fa` 1 lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2213 OF 2025 Between: 1. Vegesu Ujwala Sai Kumar Raju, S/o. Late Rama Raju, aged about 24 years, R/o. D.No. 15/2, Railway. Quarters, North Simhachalam, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. 2. Vadlakonda Shabarinath, S/a. Ramesh, aged about 24 years, R/o. Kothapalli Village, Station Ghanpur MandaI, Janagama District, Telangana State. 3. Karan Kumar, S/o. Bablu Kumar, aged about 19 years, R/o. Phirjadiguda, Uppal, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Petitioner/Accused No.1,3,4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati . Respondent Petition under Section 439 (1)(b) Cr.P.C and Section 480(1)(b) BNSS), praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the order passed by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Addl. District & Sessions Judge -Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam ill Crl.M.P. Nos.253/2025 and 227/2025 in Cr. No. 03/2025 dated 24.02.2025 by considering the situation of the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 3, 4 as llpetitioners/A1, A3 & A4 to be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with single surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Gum-I Addl. /,, Distrl'ct & sessions Judge - Special Judge for Trial of offences under NDPS Act, VI'Sakhapatnam " instead of 'lpetitioners/A1, A3 & A4 to be released on bal-I on executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties for a I,Ike sum each to the satisfaction of Hon'ble AddI. JudI-CiaI Magistrate of First class, Chodavaram, now Anakapallj DistrI-Ct and permit the petitI'OnerS/Accused No.1, 3, 4 to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs.10,000/- each with single surety I'nStead of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties. The petition comI-ng On for hearing, upon perusl'ng the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO, Advocate for the petitioners and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent and the court made the following,I ORDER: This Criminal Petition under sectl'on 483(1)(b) of B.N.S.S., has been filed by the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4, seekI'ng modification Of the COnditiOnS in the bail orders vide crl.M.P.No.253/2025(Al and A3) and Crl.M.P.No.227/2025(A4) dated 24.02.2025 on the file learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and permit the petitioners to deposit the surety bond amount of Rs.1O,OOO/-with two sureties instead of Rs.5O,000/-with two sureties. -_-P dzz< ' L== \t 2. The above said Crime was registered against the Petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 herein and others in Cr.No.03/2025 of Ravikamatham Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Without going into the merits of the case, this criminal petition is filed only seeking modification of conditions in the bail orders in CrI.M.P.No.253/2025 and 227/2025 dated 24.02.2025 on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 4. lt is submitted that despite grant of bail by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in CrI.M.P.No.253/2025 and 227/2025 dated 24.O2.2025, petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 could not furnish sureties for Rs.5O,OOO/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram. He further contends that the petitioners belong to a poor family and the petitioners are the Only Persons tO look after their respective family members by doing coolie work. lt is further submitted that more than one month time elapsed after granting bail to the petitioners and the petitioners family members could not comply with the order by furnishing sureties. In the said facts of the Case, Petitioners request tO consider their case on humanitarian grounds. 5. Learned counsel relied on a decision reported in SMWP (Criminal) No.4/2021 dated 31.O1.2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein -It 'ls observed that c€if the bail bonds are not furnished Within One month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo-motu take uP the Case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/relaxation''. LIE- ` . I 6. lt seems that the Courrwho granted bail to the petitioners in this Crime has not taken such steps, thereby forced the petitioners to approach this court. There is nothing on record tO Show that the Said SubmiSSiOnS are incorrect, as such this court is inclined to modify the bail order. 7. ln the result, the Criminal Petition iS allowed and the Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their execution of self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand Only) each With two Sureties for like Sum each. lt iS hereby made clear that the release of the petit'loners/A1, A3 and A4 on their execution of self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each With two sureties for like such each is only modified. The remain'lng conditions imposed against the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 shall remain unaltered. sd/-G. HELA NAiDU /ITRUE COPY// For A€ TRAR SECTION Off-[CER To'1. The I Addl. Distr'lCt & Sessions Judge - Spec'Ial Judge for Trial Of offences under NDPS Act, V'lsakhaPatnam 2. The Super-lntendent, Central Jail, VisakhaPatnam 3. One CC to SRl. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUCl 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, H-lgh Court of AP [OUT] 5. One spare COPY KJ ~/ HIGH COURT TMR,J DATED :21 /03/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.2213 of 2025 ALLOWED