APHC010467412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7817/2026 Between: 1. PANGI SIMAN ALILAS SEEMON, S/O. LINGU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,R/O. KOTHA GAJJEDU VILLAGE, RALEGADA PANCHAYAT,CHITRAKONDA BLOCK, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. 2. LABA KHARA ALIAS ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE BALABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O. HATIPADAR VILLAGE, BADAPADAR POST,CHITRAKONDA BLOCK, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1&2, seeking grant of bail in Crime No. 94 of 2024 of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 111(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens and the sole earning members of their respective families. The petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while enlarging them on bail. Hence, learned counsel prays that the Criminal Petition may be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioners are well founded. Hence, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Thoughtful consideration has been bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioners are entitled to grant of bail?” 7. As seen from the record, the Petitioners were arrested on 30.12.2025 pursuant to the execution of P.T. Warrants and have been in judicial custody for the past 261 days. The alleged offence took place on 30.09.2024, and after a thorough investigation, the charge-sheet was filed well within the statutory period of 180 days and the same has been numbered as NSC.No.285 of 2026. The allegation against the Petitioners is that they supplied 851.00 kgs of ganja. The seized contraband is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. There are three similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1. However, the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 has mentioned only two antecedents in the present Criminal Petition. Further, there are six more adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2, but the said antecedents have not been disclosed in the present Criminal Petition. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 9. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 observed that narcotic offences have a grave and far- reaching impact on society, destroying numerous lives. The Court further held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced. 11. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)3, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24, observed that illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs has become a serious social menace, particularly affecting the youth. The Court 12026 SCC Online 188 2(1999) 9 SCC 429 3(1990) 1 SCC 95 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 further noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under ‘the NDPS Act’ to effectively combat the menace. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh4, at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under ‘the NDPS Act’ can be granted only upon strict compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 37. The Court further observed that "reasonable grounds" require substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture. The petitioners are alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offences and have also been involved in similar offences. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the alleged offences or that they are unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case warranting grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 4(2020) 12 SCC 122 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7817 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026 50 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7817 of 2026 Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR