APHC010291082026 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: 4697 OF 2026 Between: 1. DINESH KUMAR ALIAS J DINESH KUMAR, S/O. JEEVA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O. AMBEDKAR 11 STREET, OZHALUR,CHENGALPATTU, KANCHEEPURAM, TAMIL NADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BOOSARA V N PRAVEEN KUMAR 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’) by the petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.162 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2025 in between 8.30 hours and 12 hours, near Gate No.3, Platform No.1 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station, accused No.1 and 2 were found and arrested while they were transporting 37.5 Kgs of Ganja. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be 3 examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 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?” 7. The petitioner/Accused No.4 is involved in the commercial transportation of ganja. The allegation of the prosecution is that he is the supplier of the ganja. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ambedkar 11th Street, Ozhalur, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu State. The petitioner was found in possession of 37.5 kilograms of Ganja. The case was registered in the year 2025. Since then, the petitioner has been absconding and evaded arrest for nearly one year. The Petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 65 days. So far eleven witnesses are examined and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Substantial portion of the investigation is pending. 4 8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 at Paragraph No.8 held as under: “8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament.” 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.06.2026 BSK 6 178 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4697 OF 2026 Date: 17.06.2026 BSK