1. 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 the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.95 of 2026 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, 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.K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway 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 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, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 2. He is a rowdy-sheet holder. It is alleged that the petitioner was found at the scene of offence in conscious possession of 4.00 kgs of ganja and was transporting the same illegally, as per the version of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The seized contraband is not a commercial quantity. So far, six witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner may not be in a position to threaten the official witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The petitioner was arrested on 06.04.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 93 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam District, and he has got fixed abode. There are five adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner, out of which two are under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’.

6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2020) 11 SCC 648), 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail with some stringent conditions.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

               i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam.

               ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned, on every day in between 10:00 am and 01:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

               iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

               v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall cooperate with the 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 No.2 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.

               vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.