Pedada Sai Rohith alias Smart Sai v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/4517/2026 · 2026-06-14
Y Lakshmana Rao
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3008 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3008 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010282772026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4517/2026 Between:
1. PEDADA SAI ROHITH ALIAS SMART SAI, ,S/O. JAGAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.39 ESTATE,MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D. NO.6 COLONY,OLD GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND DISTRICT.
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending disposal of Crime No.108/2026 of Gopalapatnam P.S., Visakhapatnam District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4517/2026 PEDADA SAI ROHITH ALIAS SMART SAI, ,S/O. JAGAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.39-20-156, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D. NO.6-12, S.C.
COLONY,OLD GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending disposal of Crime No.108/2026 of Gopalapatnam P.S., ct and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO PEDADA SAI ROHITH ALIAS SMART SAI, ,S/O. JAGAN, AGED 156, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND 12, S.C.
COLONY,OLD GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending disposal of Crime No.108/2026 of Gopalapatnam P.S.,
2
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4517/2026
ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “the BNSS”) by the petitioner/accused for granting of regular bail in connection with Crime No.108 of 2026 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for brevity ‘NDPS Act’).
2. Heard Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the Ms.K.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State/respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2028 at 11.00 hours, near Burial Ground, backside of Aditya College Road, Gopalapatnam, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff rushed to the said place and found one person coming from Baji Junction. On noticing him, it was found that he was transporting ganja in a bag and he confessed that he had purchased the ganja from an unknown person and was going to sell the same. Ganja weighing about 4.120 kgs was seized from the possession of the accused.
3
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he is the sole breadwinner of the family. He therefore urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not completed and only eight witnesses are examined. She further submitted that there is one antecedent against the petitioner vide Crime No.130 of 2025 for the alleged offence of murder. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and therefore he urged to dismiss the bail application.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. I have perused the entire record.
7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the
learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?”
8. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 09.04.2026, the petitioner was found indulging in dealing with 4.162 KGs of ganja. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered a case against the petitioner vide Crime No.108 of 2026 and arrested him and forwarded him to judicial custody on 09.04.2026. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 66 days. So far, eight witnesses have been examined. The petitioner was arrested on the spot. Of
4
course, there are no similar antecedents registered against the petitioner. However, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.130 of 2025 for the alleged offence of murder. Investigation is pending and some more witnesses are to be examined.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not found convincing and reasonable.
10. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.06.2026 KKV
5
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
11
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4517/2026
Date: 15.06.2026 KKV