APHC010479592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8080/2026 Between: SAYANA RAHUL KUMAR,, S/O. SAYANA NARASIMHA RAO, FLAT NO.201, SRI RAMALINGESWARA RESIDENCY, SIVALAYAM ROAD, NEAR OLD PANCHAYATI OFFICE, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND UNION OF INDIA, Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor,Through Senior Intelligence Officer,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,Vijayawada Regional Unit, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: SANTHI CHANDRA(Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 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 petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking grant of bail in F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ-21(INT-15)/2025 of DRI, Vijayawada, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20, 27A, 28 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen and the sole earning member of the family. The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 322 days. The petitioner undertakes 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, Ms.Santi Chandra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioner are well founded. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, in the counter-affidavit, submits that there was due compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52A of ‘the NDPS Act’ and that there was no delay in recording the intelligence note, conducting the search, seizing the contraband, producing the seized material before the Magistrate, drawing samples and forwarding them to the Customs House Laboratory. It is further submitted that the petitioner/A.1 had a specific role in the transportation and storage of ganja and had engaged Accused Nos.2 to 5 for assisting him in the alleged illegal activities. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further relies upon Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, contending that the statutory twin conditions for grant of bail are not satisfied, particularly in view of the commercial quantity of contraband and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s earlier bail application was dismissed on merits by the learned Trial Court and that no change in circumstances has been shown to warrant grant of bail. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI. 6. Thoughtful consideration has been bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail?” 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 322 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.8268 of 2026, vide order dated 24.09.2026, wherein, in a case of similar nature, this Court enlarged the petitioner therein on bail, who had been in judicial custody for 283 days and was alleged to have been involved in possession of 240 kgs. of ganja. In the said case, the evidence against the petitioner therein was primarily based on the confessional statements of the co-accused, which were held to be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. However, in the instant case, the nature and gravity of the evidence against the petitioner are different. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner is the mastermind behind the commission of the offence and that he was apprehended at the spot while in possession of 248.82 kgs. of ganja. The ganja was seized from a godown. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The accusations levelled against the petitioner are prima facie well founded. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.4447 of 2026, vide order dated 01.09.2026, wherein bail was granted to the accused therein, who had been in judicial custody for 190 days. However, the facts and circumstances of the said case are altogether different from those of the present case. Therefore, the principle 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 laid down in Crl.P.No.4447 of 2026 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 11. Further, in this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 15. 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. 16. 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: 28.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8080 of 2026 Dated 28.09.2026 63 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8080 of 2026 Date: 28.09.2026 RSI/DRNR