APHC010289422026 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: 4673/2026 Between: 1. NAKUL SINGH, , S/O. JOG SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS, C/O. RAJPUT,R/O HUKUMPETA, SRI RAMADEVI BOOK STATIONERY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu.,Through the SHO, Kirlampudi P.S., Kakinada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BOPPUDI ALEKHYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.1 on bail in S.C.NDPS.No.79/2026 on the 2 file of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Court under the NDPS Act, 1985, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram arising out of Crime No. 210 of 2025 on the file of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Ms. Boppudi Alekhya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the seized contraband was only 24.690 kgs, which is just above the threshold of commercial quantity. The Petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a 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, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner has two similar adverse antecedents, vide Crime No.54 of 2021 on the file of Cheedikada Police Station and Crime No.163 of 2021 on the file of V. Madugula Police Station, registered under ‘the NDPS Act’. She further submits that the charge sheet has been filed within 180 days, as the accusation is well-founded. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3 5. As seen from the record, the Petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 195 days. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he was involved in the possession and transportation of 24.690 kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed within the statutory period of 180 days. There are two similar cases are pending against the Petitioner, vide Crime No.54 of 2021 on the file of Cheedikada Police Station and Crime No.163 of 2021 on the file of V. Madugula Police Station, registered under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 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.” 8. 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, 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 9. 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. 10. 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 the accusation is well-founded. In view of the filing of the charge sheet within the statutory period of 180 days and the well‑founded nature of the accusation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 PRA 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 88 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4673 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 PRA