APHC010238532026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3747/2026 Between: 1. MERIPO LAVANYA, W/O KISHORE, A/26 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,R/AT D.NO. 2-144, SANTHAPYDIPALA VILAGE,ROUTHALAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at AmaravathiThrough S.H.O., K.D.Peta P.S, Anakapalli Dist. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused No.6 on regular bail in Crime No. 10/2026 dated 05.02.2026 on the file of K.D.Peta Police Station, Anakapalli District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVAS JARUGU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 BM,J Crl.P.No.3747 of 2026 O R D E R This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the Petitioner/A.6, seeking bail, in Crime No.10/2026 of Krishnadevipeta Police Station, Anakapalli District. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner/A.6 herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w. Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2026 at 6.45 hours, upon receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnadevipeta Police Station, along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Pallavuru Village, near the New Highway Junction in Anakapalli. It is alleged that the Police apprehended accused Nos.1 to 7 while they were transporting ganja in an i20 car bearing Registration No. WB 96 E 6809 and three scooties. The Police arrested the Accused Nos.1 to 7 and seized 50 Kgs. of loose ganja contained in two gunny bags, allegedly valued at Rs.25,00,000/-, along with certain other incriminating articles, under the cover of a mediators’ report. Thereafter, the present crime was registered against the petitioner/A-6 herein and other accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/A-6 has been implicated solely on the basis of alleged confession statements, without any independent material establishing conscious possession. No contraband was recovered from her possession, nor has any specific overt act been attributed to her. It is submitted that the essential ingredient of “conscious possession” under Section 20 of the NDPS Act is wholly absent, and mere presence with the other accused does not attract criminal liability. Except for the inadmissible confession statements, there is no substantive material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no CDRs, financial transactions, forensic material, or other 3 BM,J Crl.P.No.3747 of 2026 corroborative evidence have been produced against the petitioner. She has no criminal antecedents, is in custody for more than 98 days, and the charge sheet has not yet been filed. He further submitted that the petitioner is a young house wife with two dependent minor children and undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and thereby prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner/A.6. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition, contending that the investigation is still pending. She further submitted that the contraband involved is of commercial quantity and, therefore, in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. She also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/A.6 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The allegations against the petitioner/A-6 arise from a seizure of 50 Kgs. of ganja, which constitutes commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The record prima facie discloses that the petitioner was apprehended along with the other accused while allegedly transporting the contraband. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the investigation is still pending and the charge sheet has not yet been filed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner/A.6 conscious or exclusive possession and that her implication is based solely on the alleged confession statements of the co-accused, without any independent corroborative material. It is further contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to her. 4 BM,J Crl.P.No.3747 of 2026 9. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the evidentiary value of the material collected by the prosecution in detail. Whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband and whether the material on record is sufficient to establish her complicity, are matters to be decided during trial. Since the contraband allegedly seized is of commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. Before granting bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. The material on record prima facie indicates the petitioner’s presence and involvement along with the other accused at the time of transportation of the contraband. The contention that no recovery was effected from her individual possession, by itself, is insufficient to overcome the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the investigation is still in progress. The submission regarding the petitioner’s personal circumstances, including absence of criminal antecedents and responsibility towards minor children, has also been considered. However, such factors cannot prevail over the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a case involving commercial quantity. The prosecution has also alleged that the petitioner is a habitual offender, though this Court is not inclined to examine such rival claims in detail at this stage. 11. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband allegedly seized, and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of regular bail. 5 BM,J Crl.P.No.3747 of 2026 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 14.05.2026. MS 6 BM,J Crl.P.No.3747 of 2026 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Criminal Petition No: 3747 of 2026 Date: 14.05.2026 MS