Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3069 (AP)

Bheemapalli Rambabu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/4585/2026 · 2026-06-15

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010285052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4585/2026 Between: BHEEMAPALLI RAMBABU, S/O LATE SIMHADRI,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CONSTABLE NO. 1882,VEPADA POLICE STATION,R/O KAPU STREET, S. KOTA,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Through Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BANDI PRAVEENA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4585 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.92 of 2026 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Ms.Bandi Praveena, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and that he has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is law-abiding citizen. The petitioner would abide by any conditions that this Court deems fit to impose while enlarging him on bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 90 days. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 3. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On a perusal of the record, the petitioner is working as a Constable bearing No.1882 of Vepada Police Station. It is reported by the learned 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4585 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 Assistant Public Prosecutor that there are three similar adverse antecedents registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.242 of S. Kota Police Station, Crime No.87 of 2022 of L. Kota Police Station, and Crime No.65 of 2023 of P.M. Palem Police Station. 6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 , at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail. However, the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the possession and transportation of 8.00 Kgs of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 18.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 90 days. Though the statutory period has expired, the petitioner has not moved any application before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate seeking grant of default bail. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not yet completed. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. The source of the contraband is also required to be examined. Therefore, enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture is not found to be convincing or reasonable. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.1, and in view of the pendency of the investigation, the request for 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4585 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage is not found convincing or reasonable. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. 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: 16.06.2026 RSI 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4585 of 2026 Dated 16.06.2026 76 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4585 of 2026 Date: 16.06.2026 RSI