APHC010488202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8231/2026 Between: 1. SARADHI MASANI, W/O. ANTHONY,AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. C/O. CHARLI K, 41SARTHARPURAM SOUTH STREET, PALAYAPETTAI,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU - 627008 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KNSHNALANKA POLICE STATIONVIJAYAWADAREP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GARUGU N V DURGA SAI EKAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.86 of 2026 of Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the 2 offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. G.N.V.D.S. Ekambaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is a female aged about 28 years. She has a five-year-old child dependent on her. The entire investigation is completed. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 125 days. She was allegedly found in possession of 8.480 grams of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and her incarceration would cause undue hardship to her dependents. There are no similar antecedents reported against the Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition may be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the Petitioner is involved in dealing with a commercial quantity of ganja. The investigation is still in progress. 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. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in this case. Of course, there are no adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. So far, ten witnesses have been examined. The prosecution 3 alleges that the Petitioner had indulged in dealing with 24.950 Kgs. of ganja. Section 28 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ would squarely apply to the case on hand. The Petitioner has not completed 180 days of the statutory period. The Petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 125 days only. 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 , 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. 7. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2, 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 further noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under ‘the NDPS Act’ to effectively combat the menace. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3, 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 quanon for grant of bail. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 9. 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 supra, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the investigation is at progressive stage. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has not committed any offence or that he would refrain from committing offences in future if he is enlarged on bail. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2026 KMS 5 96 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8231 of 2026 Date: 23.09.2026 KMS