Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010302872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4814/2026 Between: 1. MEKALA PRAKASH, S/O. RAMAIAH,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. OBULANAYANAPALLI VILLAGE,MALLAKALUVA MANDAL,SATYA SAI DISTRICT, AP-515672. 2. AVULA SRINIVASULU ALIAS VENKATESH, S/O. HANUMANTHULU,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 11- 63,BAGEPALLI VILLAGE, PUNGANURU MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-517247. 3. DHANIYALA ANJAMMA, W/O. RAMANA,AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. RAMARAO COLONY,GOWTHAMI NAGAR, MADANAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-517325. 4. MEKALA SYAMALA, , W/O. RAMESH,AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-344,SANTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM POST,SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, AP -515671. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 2 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. YANAGUNURU SHASHANK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail in Crime No.36 of 2026 of Jaggampeta Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 4 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. Mr. Yanagunuru Shashank, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. The Petitioners undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners and submits that the investigation is not yet completed, and some more material witnesses are yet to be 3 examined. It is also submitted that the Petitioners indulged in the possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of Ganja. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were allegedly transporting 162.075 kilograms of ganja, as per the averments of the prosecution. The Petitioners were apprehended on the spot on 05.02.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 152 days. They were found in possession of 162.075 kilograms of ganja. The seized contraband is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. There are no similar criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioners. 6. Thus far, only four witnesses have been examined, and even the substantial portion of the investigation remains incomplete. The FSL report is still awaited. Therefore, the request of the Petitioners for enlargement on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture. 7. 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. 4 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 Petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as the investigation is still at crucial stage. There are no 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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:06.07.2026 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 110 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4814 of 2026 Date: 06.07.2026 PRA