Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010325082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5218/2026 Between: 1. KHARIM ALIAS KHATEEB SYED KARIMULLA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KHATEEB SYED CHAND,DOOR NO.6-100, KHATEEB STREET, KOTA GOOTY,GOOTY TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through S.H.O., Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 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.6 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.104 of 2026 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuramu 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 is that, on 13.05.2026, acting on credible information, the police conducted a raid at the backside of Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Gooty Town, and apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were allegedly engaged in Matka gambling and illegal possession of ganja. During the raid, the police seized about 1.100 kilograms of ganja, 34 Matka chits, three ball pens, and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- from their possession under the cover of a mediators' report (mahazarnama). 3. Mr.J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.6 submits the Petitioner has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, without any independent corroborative evidence. He submits that no ganja, Matka chits, cash, or any incriminating material was recovered from the Petitioner, and therefore, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. It is further submitted that the quantity seized is only 1.100 kilograms of ganja, which is below the commercial 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ are not attracted. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and will abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory 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. 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?” 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 8. As seen from the record, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 that he supplied 1,100 grams of ganja to the other accused and was running Matka gambling. The quantity of ganja involved is more than the small quantity, and substantial cash and other incriminating articles were seized during the investigation. The source from whom the Petitioner/Accused No.6 procured the contraband is yet to be ascertained, and the prosecution contends that his custodial interrogation is necessary for that purpose. In view of the specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 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 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 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 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 3 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3200 4 Crl.P.No.5541 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 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 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 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 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 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:07.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 111 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5218 of 2026 Dated 07.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5218 of 2026 Date: 07.07.2026 KMS