Sibiyam Sabar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail in Crime No.191 of 2026 of Visakhapatnam Police Station, GRP Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 & 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶24

Mrs.Kolli Usha Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. He further submits that the Petitioners are at the impressionable ages of 20 and 23 years, respectively. They are pursuing their graduation. They are permanent residents of Gajapati District, Odisha State. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶25

Per contra, Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners. It is submitted that the

¶26

3

¶27

investigation is not yet completed and that some more witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, it is urged that to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶28

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

¶29

On perusal of the record, the Petitioners were arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that they were arrested on 26.05.2026 while in possession of and transporting 15.9 kilograms of ganja. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 42 days. The seized ganja is not a commercial quantity. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioners. However, so far only five witnesses have been examined, and even the material portion of the investigation has not been completed. Accused No.3 continues to remain absconding, and the source of the ganja is yet to be ascertained. Therefore, the request of the Petitioner for enlargement on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the pendency of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

4

¶32