1 APHC010175532026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2565/2026 Between: 1. VANTHALA KIRAN, S/O. KAMESWARAO, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VEERAVARAM VILLAGE OF BALAPAM PANCHAYATI, CHINTAPALFI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHA RAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THRU SHO RAMPACHODAVARAM POLICE STATION, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI ...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 release the petitioners/A-08, on Bail in connection with Crime No.69 of 2025 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, ASR District, Dated 27-06-2025,under 8® R/w 20(b)(ii)(c), NDPS Act 1985, 111 (2)(b) BNS and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2565 of 2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.8, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.69 of 2025 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, ASR District, Dated 27.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”). 2. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the time of mentioning the matter, in one breath, has orally represented before this Court that the learned Special Judge, while dismissing the application for statutory bail, has suo motu extended the time for completion of investigation without there being any application filed by the Prosecution. However, a perusal of the grounds raised in the present petition reveals a contradictory stand, wherein it is specifically averred that the learned trial Judge has extended the time for investigation on the applications filed by the Prosecution. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is well reasoned and that the extension of time was granted only upon applications filed by the Prosecution. 3 It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending, particularly for apprehension of other accused persons, and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the record that the learned Special Court has, in fact, considered the applications filed by the Prosecution and, upon being satisfied with the reasons assigned therein, extended the time for completion of investigation till 15.04.2026, particularly in view of the pendency of investigation for apprehension of other accused and the seizure of 1142 kgs of ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order warranting interference. 6. Further, this Court is constrained to note the inconsistent and misleading stands taken in this matter. While making oral submissions, it is represented that the extension of time was granted suo motu by the Special Court, whereas the pleadings in the petition clearly acknowledge that such extension was granted on applications filed by the Prosecution. Such contradictory assertions, made without due diligence and contrary to the record, amount to sheer abuse of the process of Court. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner offered apology for wasting the precious time of this Court. 7. Filing of petitions containing misleading averments and making submissions contrary to the record not only wastes valuable judicial time but also attempts to secure orders on incorrect premises and such type of 4 approach deserves to be deprecated. In token of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to impose costs. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Costs of Rs.2,000/- are imposed, payable to the High Court Advocate Clerks’ Association. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.04.2026. UPS 5 18 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2565/2026 Dt.06.04.2026 UPS