APHC010289192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4655/2026 Between: 1. LANKE CHANDU, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,R/O. 2-20, GANDHINAGAR COLONY, BAVANNARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, SARPAVARAM, KAKINADA RURAL,KAKINADA DISTRICT-533 005. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 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 grant bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2 in connection with crime No. 25 of 2026 of K.D. Peta Police Station, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 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 Petitioner/Accused No.2 for granting of bail in connection with Crime No.25 of 2026 of K.D. Peta Police Station, Anakapalli 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 Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2026 at about 11.30 hours, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.D. Peta Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, intercepted the accused near Pedavalasa Agency area while they were allegedly transporting 50 kgs of ganja in a car and a motorcycle. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had procured the contraband from one Vanthala Acchibabu @ Hemanth of Kotagunnala Village. The police seized 50 kgs of ganja, three motorcycles, one car and five cell phones under the cover of a mediators' report. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has been falsely 3 implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has a fixed abode. He would abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while enlarging the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail. Hence, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 10 kgs of ganja. The said quantity is not a commercial quantity. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 51 days. Hence, learned counsel urged this Court to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 6. Per contra, Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further raises an apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there are altogether six accused in the case and the total quantity of ganja seized is 50 kgs, which is a commercial quantity. The investigation is still pending. The 4 technical report is awaited. Some more witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged this Court to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 9. 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?” 10. As seen from the record, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested on the spot along with the other accused. Accused No.6 is yet to be apprehended. Though the Petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 10 kgs of ganja individually, all the accused were allegedly transporting 50 kgs of ganja collectively in the same transaction. Therefore, Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would squarely apply to the case on hand. So far, only six witnesses have been examined and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The investigation is still at a nascent stage. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.04.2026, i.e., for a period of 51 days. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 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 1(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20. The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court over looked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21. The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases.” 12. Therefore, this Court finds no reason for enlarging the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.06.2026 DSV 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4655/2026 Date: 18.06.2026 DSV 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4655/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 18.06.2026 Dr.YLR, J The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order) ________ Dr.YLR, J DSV 8 SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE