APHC010284102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4568/2026 Between: 1. CHELLURI NAGESH BABU, ,S/O. KRISHNA, AGED 40 YEARS. CASTE BC-D NAGAVAMSAM,D.NO.4-107, DAKAMARRI VILLAGE,BHIMILI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,PH9885012805,AADHAAR NO.3776 1019 2011. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravathiNelapadu, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SINGURU SAI KRISHNA 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.8 on bail in Crime No. 156 of 2025 on the 2 file of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 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. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 23.09.2025 police intercepted an Innova car near Krishnavaram and seized 4.390 kgs of Ganja. Later, 351.180 kgs were recovered from the fields at China Brammadevam village. On 29.09.2025, 28.250 kgs were seized from the crime vehicle and Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 were apprehended. Subsequently, Accused No.1 confessed his involvement during investigation in another case and was produced before the Court. Finally, on 20.02.2026 the Petitioner/A-8 was arrested and has remained in custody since then. 3. Mr. Singuru Sai Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that at the time of the alleged offence, the Petitioner was not present at the scene of offence, as he was in the holy place of Tirumala for Darshan. In support of this contention, the Petitioner has placed on record certain documents, including a recommendation letter issued by the local MLA for hassle-free Darshan. It is further submitted that no confession was recorded from the Accused No.8, and nothing was seized from his possession. The Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 have already been enlarged on bail in the instant case, and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. She submits that nearly 355 kgs of Ganja was allegedly transported, and the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 is that he had facilitated the transportation. He also actively participated in the transportation of Ganja. Accused Nos.2, 4, and 7 have been absconding. The Petitioner received Rs.55,000/- from Accused No.2, and therefore she urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shubham Chaudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh1, wherein at para No.8, several judgments relating to the grant of bail were referred to, which broadly laid down the principles governing the grant of bail. 7. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 is that he facilitated and transported Ganja. On noticing the search party police, the Petitioner fled from the scene of offence. There are bank transactions between the Petitioner and Accused No.2. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed a notarized affidavit narrating the circumstances under which the alleged amount was transacted from the account of Accused No.2 to Accused No.8, all these 1 2026 SCC OnLine HP 1750 4 contentions cannot be appreciated at this point of time while considering the bail application. These points are subject matter of appreciation after culmination of the trial, before pronouncement of judgment, and not at the stage of deciding the bail application. The role of the Petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.1. Investigation is still at nascent stage, and several witnesses are yet to be examined. Accused Nos.2, 4, and 7 continue to be absconding. From the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application till the date of the present bail application, there has been no change in circumstances. The seized quantity is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. 8. Even though Accused Nos.3, 5, and 6 were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court, it was only on the ground that they had been in judicial custody beyond the statutory period. In the instant case, however, the Petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2026. He has been in judicial custody for only 123 days. The statutory period of 180 days has not yet been completed. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in Crl.M.P.No.3094 of 2026 dated 29.04.2026, dismissed the first bail application on the ground that the statutory period of 180 days had not been completed and the conditions mentioned under Section 37(b)(ii) of ‘the NDPS Act’ were not satisfied. It was further observed that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the Petitioner had not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence or that he would refrain from committing such offence in future. 5 9. 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. 10. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh2, 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 held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced. 11. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)3, 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. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh4, 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. 13. 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 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as there are no changes in the circumstances and investigation is still at crucial stage. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. 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:23.06.2026 PRA 7 107 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4568 of 2026 Date: 23.06.2026 PRA