Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :08.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010322402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5169/2026 Between: 1. PACHIKURA LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O APPALANAIDU,AGE 39 YRS, 00- KAPU BY CASTE,SCRAP SHOP BUSINESS, PONGALIPAKA VILLAGE,V. MADUGULA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaravatiThrough the Station House officer,G. Madugula P.S., Alluri Seetha Ramaraju 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail to in connection with crime no. 8 07/2026 on the file of G.Madugula P.S., Alluri Seetha Ramaraj District., dated 14-02-2026 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. JEERU ESWAR REDDY 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.2 on bail in Crime No. 07 of 2026 on the file of G. Madugula Police Station, Alluru Sita Ramaraju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 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 14.02.2026, the police of G. Madugula Police Station, acting on credible information, intercepted a Bolero vehicle at Mathyapuram Junction, G. Madugula Mandal. The occupants allegedly attempted to flee but were apprehended. Upon search of the vehicle, the police allegedly seized 1,000 kilograms of Ganja and three mobile phones. Accordingly, Crime No. 24 of 2026 was registered, and the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Mr. Jeeru Eswar Reddy, 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, Mr. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. He submits that nearly 1000 kgs of Ganja was allegedly transported, and the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. On a perusal of the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.2 is that he purchased 1,000 kilograms of Ganja from Accused No.3 from the State of Odisha. The quantity allegedly involved is not merely a commercial quantity but a colossal quantity attracting the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’. The petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 143 days. The prosecution has also placed on record that there is one similar criminal antecedent against the petitioner. So far, only six witnesses have been examined. The prosecution submits that certain official witnesses are yet to be examined and that the investigation regarding the source and procurement of the contraband is yet to be fully completed. 7. As seen from the record, inventory proceedings under Section 52A of ‘the NDPS Act’ were conducted by the learned Magistrate on 18.03.2026, during which samples were drawn under the supervision of the Magistrate. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the petitioner's contention that samples were not drawn at the time of seizure. Such contention relates to appreciation of evidence and compliance with the procedural safeguards, which are matters to be adjudicated during trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-drawing of samples at the time of seizure, by itself, entitles the petitioner to bail cannot be accepted. 8. In Union of India v. Mohanlal1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the procedure contemplated under Section 52A of ‘the NDPS Act’ that sampling should be undertaken under the supervision of the Magistrate, wherein it is held as under: 13. It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52- A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52- A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance withsub-section (2) and (3) of 1 (2016) 3 SCC 379 Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re- examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction. 14. Mr. Sinha, learned Amicus, argues that if an amendment of the Act stipulating that the samples be taken at the time of seizure is not possible, the least that ought to be done is to make it obligatory for the officer conducting the seizure to apply to the Magistrate for drawing of samples and certification etc. without any loss of time. The officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and the making of the application to the superior officer in writing so that there is a certain amount of accountability in the entire exercise, which as at present gets neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not make any special provision regulating storage of the contraband substances. All that Section 55 of the Act envisages is that the officer in charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized article pending orders of the Magistrate concerned. There is no provision nor was any such provision pointed out to us by learned counsel for the parties prescribing the nature of the storage facility to be used for storage of the contraband substances. Even so the importance of adequate storage facilities for safe deposit and storage of the contraband material has been recognised by the Government inasmuch as Standing Order No.1/89 has made specific provisions in regard to thesame. Section III of the said Order deals with Receipt of Drugs in Godowns and Procedure which inter alia provides that all drugs shall invariably be stored in safes and vaults provided with double locking system and that the agencies of the Central and the State Governments may specifically designate their godowns for storage purposes and such godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. We may usefully extract paras 3.2 to 3.9 comprising Section III supra at this stage for ready reference. 20. "No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in- charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(2) of the Act... The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order” 9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the colossal quantity of contraband allegedly involved, the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the stage of the trial, and the embargo contained under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. The contention regarding non-drawing of samples at the time of seizure, by itself, does not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal supra. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’. 11. In the instant case, the Petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2026. He has been in judicial custody for only 143 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 16. 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. 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 17. 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:08.07.2026 JLSR Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5169 of 2026 Date: 08.07.2026 JLSR