Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010302492026 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: 4779/2026 Between: 1. KILO DONNO ALIAS KHILA DHANA, S/O.PARMANANDA, AGE 39 YEARS, C/HARIJAN,DISARARSIGUDA VILLAGE, GUNTAWADA PANCHAYAT,CHITRAKONDA BLOCK, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE.NO. 6 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the Public Prosecutor for High Court of A.Pthrough - Station House Officer, Maredumilli Police Station, East Godavari.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. 6 on Regular Bail in Crime No. 85 of 2024 of Maredumilli Police Station, on such terms and conditions, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TORATI SHANMUKHA PRASANNA 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.6 on bail in Crime No. 85 of 2024 on the file of Maredumilli Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 herein for the offences punishable under Section 111(2) (b) of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhitha (for brevity ‘the B.N.S’) and Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(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 28.10.2024 at about 3:00 p.m., at PM Kota Junction, on the outskirts of Kuduru Village, Maredumilli Mandal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maredumilli, apprehended Accused No.5 while he was allegedly in possession of and transporting ganja from Disaraguda Village to Rajamahendravaram at the instigation of Accused Nos.1 to 4. The police seized the contraband, registered Crime No.85 of 2024, and subsequently secured the custody of the petitioner/Accused No.6 by executing a P.T. warrant. 3. Ms. Torati Shanmukha Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the time of the alleged offence, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and that, except for the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no incriminating material against the petitioner. It is further submitted that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that Accused Nos.5 and 6 have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. 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 402 kgs of Ganja was allegedly transported, and the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 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.6 is that he assisted in the transportation of 402 kilograms of ganja. The seized quantity is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. There is one similar criminal antecedent against the petitioner in the year 2025. The petitioner was arrested by executing a P.T. warrant on 20.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 161 days. The trial is at a nascent stage. So far, 11 witnesses have been examined, and several more witnesses remain to be examined. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Odisha and has a fixed place of abode. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Even though Accused Nos.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 20.01.2026. He has been in judicial custody for only 161 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. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 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 141 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4779 of 2026 Date: 29.06.2026 JLSR