Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :29.06.2026 Date of uploading :08.07.2026 APHC010303412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4801/2026 Between: 1. NADIGATLA GOPAJAKRISHNA, ,S/O LATE DEMUDU, AGE 27 YEARS,R/O TALLA CHEEDIKADA VILLAGE,LINGAMDARA PANCHAYAT, GOLUGONDA MANDAL,ASR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District. ...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.1 on Regular Bail in connection with Crime No.89/2024 on the file of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, dated:07-09-2024 for alleged offences Under Section 20(b)(ll)(C), 25 r/w 8(C) of NDPS Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA 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 Crime No. 89 of 2024 on the file of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluru Sita Ramaraju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with Sections 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The material averments of the prosecution are that, on 07.09.2024 at about 17:00 hours, at Doddavaram Village Junction, Koyyuru Mandal, Alluri Sita Ramaraju Manyam District, the police apprehended the accused while they were allegedly in possession of and transporting 105 kilograms of Ganja in an auto-rickshaw. The police seized the Ganja, the vehicle, and the mobile phones found in their possession, and thereafter registered the present crime against the accused. 3. Mr. Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrested by the police. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. He submits that nearly 105 kgs of Ganja was allegedly transported, and the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he had facilitated the transportation. He also actively participated in the transportation of Ganja and therefore he urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he assisted in the transportation of 105 kilograms of ganja, which is commercial quantity. There is one similar criminal antecedent against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 106 days. A substantial part of the investigation has been completed. So far, five witnesses have been examined, and several more witnesses remain to be examined. The trial is at a nascent stage. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Alluri Sitarama Raju District and has a fixed place of abode. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the commercial quantity of contraband allegedly involved, and the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. In the instant case, the Petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2026. He has been in judicial custody for only 106 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 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. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 12. 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 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. 13. 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:29.06.2026 JLSR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 143 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4801 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 JLSR