APHC010428762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7073/2026 Between: RONGALA SURYA KIRAN, S/O POTHURAJU AGED 20 YEARS,D.NO.3- 273,SRINIVASATALKIES, GOLLALA MAMIDADA VILLAGE,OF PEDAPUDI MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7073 of 2026 Dated 22.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.3 on bail in Crime No.44 of 2026 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the 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.Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the contraband involved in the case is 24.00 kgs of ganja. So far, only four witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has not completed the statutory period. Hence, he urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed, 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7073 of 2026 Dated 22.09.2026 as the investigation is still pending and some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. 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.3. The petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2026 while he was in possession and transportation of 24.00 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Of course, no adverse antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 131 days only. So far, only four witnesses have been examined. The material part of the investigation is yet to be completed, and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. 6. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is also not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1, 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. 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7073 of 2026 Dated 22.09.2026 8. 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. 9. 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 qua non for grant of bail. 10. 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 petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case warranting grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7073 of 2026 Dated 22.09.2026 11. 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:22.09.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7073 of 2026 Dated 22.09.2026 40 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7073 of 2026 Date: 22.09.2026 RSI