Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010304062026 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: 4806/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK LALU, S/O. LATE SHAIK MEERJAN SAHEB,AGE 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-712,NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PAIABAVI STREET, AKKAGARLA COLONY,CHANDRAGIRI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517101. 2. VENKATAPUKRAM SASI KUMAR, S/O. PRABHAKAR,AGE28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.13-55,PICHINAIDU PALLE VILLAGE, TONDAWADA POST,CHANDDRAGIRI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT -517505. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) 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(S): 1. D PURNA CHANDRA REDDY 2. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 & 2 on bail in Crime No.23 of 2026 of Chandragiri Urban Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 & 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. D.Purna Chandra Reddy, 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 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. 3 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is that they were found in possession of and allegedly transporting 22 kilograms of ganja illegally. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The Petitioners were apprehended on the spot on 03.02.2026 and have since been in judicial custody for the past 153 days. There is one adverse similar criminal antecedent reported against the Petitioners. 6. Be that as it may, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 are presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 , at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail. 7. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 purchased 22 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, from Accused No.3 for the purpose of selling the same to Accused No. 4. The inventory has not yet been completed. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court certain averments in the mediators’ report prepared by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, wherein it was mentioned that the packets contained ganja mixed with leaves and stems. However, the inventory table filed before the learned Trial Court, along with the statement, indicates that 21.700 kilograms of ganja was found in the packets. The seized contraband thus undoubtedly falls within the category of commercial quantity. 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 4 8. So far, only three witnesses have been examined. However, the investigation is still at a nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are to be examined, and a substantial portion of the investigation is yet to be completed. Therefore, the request of the Petitioner for enlargement on bail is not found convincing or reasonable at this juncture. 9. 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. 10. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh2, 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. 11. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)3, 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. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh4, 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 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 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 Rajesh, the request of the Petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as the investigation is still at crucial stage. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioners. 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:06.07.2026 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 105 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4806 of 2026 Date: 06.07.2026 PRA