APHC010290582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4680 OF 2026 Between: 1. MARRI RAMESH, S/O CINE RAJU BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC DAILY LABOURR/O D. NO.8-34/1, GUNDAPALLE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati through the SHO, Donka Rai Police Station, Alluri Sita Rama Raju District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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.2 on bail in Crime No.3 of 2016 of Donkarai Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)-2a read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 27.03.2016 at about 02:00 hours in front of Goddess Sri Vana Kanaka Durga Temple, Donkarai Village towards Seerleru Road, Donkarai Police Station limits, Y.Ramavaram Mandal , the police arrested Accused Nos.3 and 4 in possession of 783 kilograms of ganja packed in 35 gunny bags. They were transporting it in an Eicher van bearing registration No.AP31X0207. The police seized the ganja and the vehicle in the presence of mediators and the Accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The case is of the year 2016 vide crime No.3 of 2016. The Accused Nos.6 and 7 were acquitted after full-fledged of the trial. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2026 and he was remanded in judicial custody. He would abide by any 3 condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the petitioner has been absconding quite long time. The petitioner played a role in the commission of the alleged offence by acting as a transporter of a colossal quantity of ganja i.e., 783 Kgs which is a commercial quantity under ‘the NDPS Act, and the offence alleged against the Petitioner is grave and serious in nature, involving the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs which have a pernicious effect on society, particularly on youth. The prosecution emphasizes that the recovery was affected under due procedure with independent mediators, and the confession of the Accused corroborates the seizure. In such circumstances, granting bail would not only hamper the investigation but also embolden the accused to continue his unlawful activities, thereby posing a serious threat to public order and the larger societal interest and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. 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?” 4 7. As seen from the record, the crime pertains to the year 2016. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No. 2 is that he is in transportation of 783 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, the charge sheet was filed showing him as an absconding. The trial was conducted against the other accused and it was acquittal of Accused Nos. 6 and 7, the petitioner was unavailable to face the trial. 8. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 103 days. For the past 10 years, the petitioner has been absconding. If the petitioner is enlarging on bail he may not be available for the Trial. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of four (04) weeks. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.06.2026 BSK 5 160 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4680 OF 2026 Date: 17.06.2026 BSK