The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...Petitioner/Accused Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent Petition under Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C/ Under Sections 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of .i Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 165/2026 of Kancharapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the, f memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI BOOSARA V N PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Petitioner, and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, for the Respondent, the Court made the following ! 2 Dr. YLR,o Crl..PNo.6676 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 \ 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 ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge Petitioner/Accused in Crime No. 165 of 2026 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii){B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Mr.Boosara V.N.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. He is a law-abiding citizen. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still undenway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the 3 Dr. YLR,J Crl.PNo.6676 of 2026 Datedi 7.08.2026 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, this is the second bail application. This Court, vide order dated 27.07.2026 in Crl.P.No.5740 of 2026, dismissed the first bail application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 61 days. It is alleged that the petitioner was involved in dealing with 4.00 Kgs. of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Odisha State and has got fixed abode. The material part of the investigation with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner has been completed. Therefore , the possibility of the petitioner threatening the witnesses tampering with the evidence, or hampering the investigation may not arise. There is one adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner.

6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh\ at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity^of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused this Court is \ (2020) 11 see 648 4 T Dr. YLR,^ Crl.RNo.6676 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused with some stringent conditions.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent Conditions: i. The Petitioner/Accused shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. iii. The Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The petitioner/Accused shall not commit or indulge in any similar offence while on bail. If is noticed that the petitioner has indulged in any similar offence, the Station House Officer concerned is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. 5 Dr.YLRJ Crl.PNo.6676 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 V. The Petitioner/Accused cooperate investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioner/Accused 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. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M.SRINI\/AS DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To >

1. The VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Visakhapatnam

2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam.

3. The Station House Officer, Kancharapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam District. /

4. One CC to SRI. BOOSARA V N PRAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

6. One spare copy \ HIGH COURT DR.YLR,J DATED: 17/08/2026 BAIL ORDER CRLP NO. 6676 OF 2026 ALLOWED T i 3: 17 AUG 2lt5 c=f ★