APHC010018282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 285/2026 Between: 1.TONGI ANUSHA LAVANYA, D/O SUBBAROAGE 23 YEARS, R/O DESAPATRUNIPALEM,STEEL PLANT,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.N/O MUNCHANGIPUTTU,PADERU,ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF AP AT AMRAVATI. 2.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARILOVA P.S, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.Chennu Pavan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.NDPS.No.297 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of offences under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ at Visakhapatnam. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the presence of the Petitioner may be dispensed with in the course of trial, and prays for disposal of the Criminal Petition accordingly. 3. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is an attempt to thwart the due course of criminal law. The allegations against the Petitioner are not illusory but stem from the chain of investigation wherein recovery of contraband, coupled with statements of co‑accused, disclose prima facie material sufficient to proceed to trial. It is trite that at the stage of cognizance, the Court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence but only to ascertain whether the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute an offence. The seizure of contraband from the hotel room, though not from the Petitioner’s direct custody, raises a presumption under Section 35 and Section 54 of ‘the NDPS Act’ regarding culpable mental state and possession, which can only be rebutted during trial. The alleged non‑compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 50, and 57 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is also a matter of evidence, requiring adjudication upon appreciation of facts. Therefore, the petition seeking quashment of proceedings is a clear abuse of process, and the impugned charge sheet discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the Petitioner. 3 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by both sides, this Court is of the view that the quashment of proceedings in SC.NDPS.No.297 of 2024 cannot be acceded to at this stage, and the veracity of the allegations is a matter to be adjudicated upon evidence. However, in order to mitigate hardship to the Petitioner/Accused No.5, and bearing in mind the settled principle that personal attendance may be dispensed with where the presence of the accused is not indispensable for the progress of trial, this Court deems it proper to direct that the personal presence of the Petitioner before the learned II Metropolitan Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam, is dispensed with, except when specifically required by the learned Trial Court where the learned Trial Court considers the presence necessary. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above direction. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date: 24.02.2026 VTS