Common Order

1. These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the petitioners in the two petitions are different, but the crime registered against them is one and the same.

2. These two 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.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.235 of 2025 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 02.11.2025 at about 6:15 p.m., the police, on receipt of credible information, conducted a raid near Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam, and apprehended three accused persons while they were allegedly in possession of 48 LSD blots, three mobile phones, and an Ola scooter. During the seizure, the contraband was recovered under the cover of a mediators' report. It is alleged that the accused were friends, habituated to consuming liquor, ganja, and drugs, and had conspired to procure LSD blots from one Santhan of Bengaluru. Pursuant to the conspiracy, one of the accused allegedly travelled to Bengaluru, purchased 50 LSD blots by paying Rs.25,000/-, and brought 48 LSD blots to Visakhapatnam by train. The prosecution further alleges that all the accused assembled near Sai Baba Temple, Railway New Colony, to receive and transport the contraband, whereupon they were apprehended by the police, leading to the registration of the present crime.

4. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.P.Vivek, the learned counsel appearing for Accused No.2 and Mr.S.Rama Lakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry and vendetta, and that there is no legally admissible material to connect them with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that there is no evidence of conscious possession or any overt act attributable to the petitioners and that their implication is based solely on alleged confessional statements.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are young students pursuing M.B.A. and B.Tech. 3rd Year, respectively, and that their continued incarceration would seriously prejudice their academic career. The petitioners were arrested on 02.11.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 243 days. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petitioners be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, Mr.K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature and involve commercial quantity of LSD blots, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’. It is contended that the investigation has revealed the active involvement of the petitioners in procuring and transporting the contraband from Bengaluru to Visakhapatnam pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused under the cover of a mediators' report and that there is prima facie material connecting the petitioners with the commission of the offence. It is also submitted that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is:

               "Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?"

11. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 has filed the present second bail application. This Court, vide orders dated 09.02.2026 and 25.04.2026 in Crl.P.Nos.731 and 941 of 2026, dismissed the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1. The petitioners were arrested on 02.11.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 243 days. An application for extension of remand was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court on the 179th day from the date of initial remand, seeking extension of the remand of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 27.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2026. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail. Accused No.3 has already been enlarged on bail. So far, eight witnesses have been examined, all of whom are official witnesses. A substantial portion of the investigation with regard to the role played by the petitioner has already been completed, but the charge sheet has not yet been filed. Therefore, the scope for the petitioners threatening the official witnesses, tampering with the evidence, or hampering the investigation may not arise. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. The petitioners are at an impressionable ages about 22 and 23 years, respectively. The petitioner/Accused No.1 is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam District, and the petitioner/Accused No.2 is a permanent resident of Srikakulam District. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to some stringent conditions, the interests of justice would be sub-served.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail with some stringent conditions.

13. In the result, these two Criminal Petitions are allowed with the following stringent conditions:

               i. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

               ii. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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.

               iv. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

               v. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

               vi. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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.

               vii. The Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 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.