Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :22.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010279952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4434/2026 Between: 1. AMBATI VISHAL ALIAS VISHAL, S/0 MAHESWARA LAKSHMI DEVI,AGE 48 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, RESIDING AT 21-06- 81/7/228,BMR HABITAT, MARUTHI GARDENS, REVENUE WARD NO-21 TADEPALLI,KOLANUKONDA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522502 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through The SHO, Tenali III Town Police Station,Tenali, Guntur District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - 522239,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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 72/2026 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station, Guntur District, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V.RAVINDHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioner/Accused No.4, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.72 of 2026 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 21 (b) and 27 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2026 at 21.00 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, apprehended A1, A2 and A3 opposite the Market Yard near Ramesh Car Travels in Tenali. Upon their apprehension, they were allegedly found in possession of 5 grams of 3, 4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), valued at Rs.14,500/-. The F.I.R claims that during a subsequent enquiry of A1, it was stated that A1 to A4 had collectively sent Rs.14,500/- to A5 in Bangalore via Phonepe to purchased the MDMA. It was further alleged that A5 dispatched the contraband through a bus, which A1 to A3 collected before being caught. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 21 years. He further submits that the petitioner have not committed any offence and are innocent. It is also contended that they have been falsely 1 ‘the BNSS’ implicated in the present case and that he was not present at the scene of the offence, was never apprehended by the police and no contraband whatsoever was seized from the petitioner and the entire 5 grams of MDMA was recovered exclusively from A1, A2 and A3. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and prays to enlarge petitioner/ Accused No.4 on Anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not yet completed and the inventory is also pending. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Anticipatory bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. 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 Anticipatory bail?” 8. The allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4 is that on 14.04.2026 at about 9:00 p.m., the police apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3 near Market Yard, Tenali, and allegedly recovered 5 grams of 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) from their possession. It is further alleged that, during enquiry, Accused No.1 stated that Accused Nos.1 to 4 had jointly transferred Rs.14,500/- to Accused No.5 through PhonePe for the purchase of the contraband, which was allegedly dispatched from Bangalore by bus and collected by Accused Nos.1 to 3. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail, as the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not found convincing or reasonable and since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.06.2026 JLSR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 230 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4434 of 2026 22.06.2026 JLSR