Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010302322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4765/2026 Between: 1. V KRISHNAKISHORE REDDY,, S/O V. SIDDA REDDY,AGED 46 YEARS, R/O 4-39A,VANKIREDDYGARI PAILI, BODEVANDLAPALLI,YERRAVARIPALEM,CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2024 of SEB Tirupati Urban Police Station, Tirupati District registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2024, acting on credible information, the police intercepted two persons near the West Railway Station, Tirupati, and, after complying with the procedure under the NDPS Act in the presence of mediators and a Gazetted Officer, conducted their search. During the search, the police allegedly recovered a total of 1.1 kilograms of dry Ganja from the possession of the accused and seized the same under the cover of a mediators' report. During interrogation, the accused allegedly disclosed that they had procured the contraband from Accused Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of selling it to consumers in Tirupati. Based on the said disclosure, the role of Accused Nos.3 and 4 came to light, and the present crime was registered against all the accused for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.’ 3. Mr.D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.4 submits the Petitioner is innocent, has been falsely 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 implicated, and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged search and seizure of the contraband. It is contended that the Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the alleged confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, without any independent incriminating material linking him to the offence. The learned Counsel further submits that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail and that the Petitioner has no significant criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, will cooperate with the investigation, and will neither abscond nor tamper with the prosecution evidence and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 5. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for 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 pre-arrest bail?” 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is that he, along with Accused No.3, was involved in supplying Ganja to Accused Nos.1 and 2. The record further reveals that Accused No.2, in his alleged confession, stated that the 1.100 kilograms of Ganja was purchased from Accused No.3. The source from whom Accused No.3 procured the contraband is yet to be ascertained, and the prosecution contends that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is necessary for that purpose. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 and the stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. 9. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced. 10. 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. 11. This Court in Bommisetty Hari Kiran v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, held that the grant of anticipatory bail at the pre-investigation stage in cases under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ requires utmost judicial caution, particularly in offences involving commercial quantity. At the stage when investigation is incomplete and material evidence is yet to be collected, the Court cannot reasonably record satisfaction regarding the innocence of the accused. The stringent mandate of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and the legislative intent underlying its restrictive bail regime must be strictly adhered to. Although anticipatory bail may be granted in rare and exceptional fact-specific circumstances, such orders do not constitute binding precedent for general application. In the absence of any material demonstrating mala fide invocation of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ or abuse of the investigative process, the Court must adopt a restrictive approach. The need to balance individual liberty with the compelling societal 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3200 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 interest in combating narcotics offences warrants meticulous scrutiny of anticipatory bail applications, and such relief should not be granted as a matter of routine. 12 Further, this Court in Ganeswar Acharya v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, held that the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ particularly at the pre-investigation stage and in cases involving commercial quantity, is to be exercised with the utmost circumspection, as the Court cannot, in the absence of a completed investigation and collection of material evidence, record the requisite satisfaction regarding the culpability or otherwise of the accused. The rigours engrafted under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and the legislative mandate governing the grant of bail must receive strict adherence. The grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional fact-specific cases constitutes an exception rather than the rule and cannot be construed as diluting the statutory embargo. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing mala fide invocation of the provisions of ‘the Act.,’ or abuse of the investigative process, judicial restraint is imperative, having due regard to the competing considerations of individual liberty and the compelling societal interest in curbing narcotic offences. Consequently, applications seeking anticipatory bail 4 Crl.P.No.5541 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ warrant rigorous judicial scrutiny and ought not to be entertained as a matter of routine. 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 Didier and this Court in Bommisetty Hari Kiran and Ganeswar Acharya 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 pre-arrest 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:30.06.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4765 of 2026 Dated 30.06.2026 93 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4765 of 2026 Date: 30.06.2026 KMS