APHC010289372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4669/2026 Between: 1. SINDERI LAKSHMAYYA, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. KAPPAGONDI VILLAGE, BALAPAM PANCHAYAT, CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. 2. VANTALA KRISHNA, S/O. KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O. KONDAPALLI VILLAGE, JERRALA PANCHAYAT,G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. 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 Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 4 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.52/2025 of Chintapalli P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 4 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.52 of 2025 of Chintapalli Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2025, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Chintapalli Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to the outskirts of Chowdupalli Village and kept surveillance. After some time, the police noticed four persons arriving on two motorcycles and shifting ganja from bags. On seeing the police, they attempted to escape. The police apprehended Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, while Accused No.3 escaped from the scene. During the course of investigation, the police seized 3.17 kgs of liquid ganja under the cover of a mediators' report. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent. They are the sole breadwinners of their respective families. They have been falsely implicated in this case. They are law-abiding citizens. They have fixed abodes. They would abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while enlarging the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail. Hence, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 212 days. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, learned counsel urged this Court to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 on bail. 6. On the other hand, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 4, submitting that are similar adverse antecedents against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 4 and urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. 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 Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 9. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 were arrested on the spot while in possession and transportation of 3.17 kgs of hash oil. It is a commercial quantity. Even one kilogram of hash oil constitutes a commercial quantity. The Petitioners were arrested on 20.11.2025. They have 4 been in judicial custody for the past 212 days. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 30.04.2026, i.e., within 180 days. There are similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioners. However, the Petitioners have not mentioned the same in the present petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Others1, mandated that an accused must disclose his previous antecedents in the bail petition. The accusations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 are well-founded. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 on bail at this juncture. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.06.2026 DSV 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4669/2026 Date: 19.06.2026 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4669/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 19.06.2026 Dr.YLR, J The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order) ________ Dr.YLR, J DSV 7 SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE