APHC010283032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4538/2026 Between: BABULU TAKRI, ,S/O. JAYASINH TALARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,R/O. CHIKAPAR VILLAGE, SUNABEDA MUNICIPALITY,KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4538 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 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.3 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2026 of Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got a fixed abode. It is further submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.3 had only arranged the room for the stay of Accused Nos.1 and 2. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to him. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the source of the ganja and that he had supplied the ganja to the other 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4538 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 accused. It is further submitted that the investigation is not completed and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also submitted that the petitioner indulged in the possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja. 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. As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 94 days only. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner is the source for the supply of 45.00 Kgs of ganja. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for enlargement on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture. 6. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is also not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 observed that narcotic offences have a grave and far- reaching impact on society, destroying numerous lives. The Court further 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4538 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced. 8. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24, observed that illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs has become a serious social menace, particularly affecting the youth. The Court further noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under the NDPS Act to effectively combat the menace. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3, at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under the NDPS Act can be granted only upon strict compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 37. The Court further observed that "reasonable grounds" require substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4538 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 11. 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:22.06.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4538 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 161 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4538 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 RSI