APHC010282902026 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: 4528/2026 Between: LOCHALA RAJUBABU, S/O. RAJUBABU, AGE 30 YEARS, ST - VALMIKI, R/O. BAKULURU VILLAGE, KANTAVARAM POST, KOYYURU MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT,NOW AT THALLACHEDIKADA VILLAGE, CHODYAM POST, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer,Pithapuram Rural P.S, Fast Godavari District,Represented by Public Prosecutor,High court of A.P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4528 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.28 of 2026 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 106 of ‘the BNSS’ and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Duggirala Subash, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is not completed and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further submitted that the petitioner indulged in the possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja. It is also submitted that there are similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4528 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as the driver of the vehicle in which 92.00 Kgs of ganja was transported, which is a commercial quantity. Based on the confession of the other accused, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3. The petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 86 days only. The investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. There are similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. 6. This Court, in Crl.P.No.4463 of 2026, vide order dated 18.06.2026, dismissed the bail application filed by Accused No.2. The present petitioner/Accused No.3 is also standing on the same footing. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for enlargement on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture. 7. 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. 8. 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.4528 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.4528 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 12. 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.4528 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 154 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4528 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 RSI