Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010339742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5440/2026 Between: DINESH KUMAR ALIAS J DINESH KUMAR, S/O. JEEVA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O. AMBEDKAR 11TH STREET, OZHALUR,CHENGALPATTU, KANCHEEPURAM, TAMIL NADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BOOSARA V N PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5440 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.162 of 2025 of Visakhapatnam Police Station, GRP Vijayawada, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.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.Boosara V.N.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. It is further submitted Accused Nos.1 and 2 were already enlarged on bail by this Court. Nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5440 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 are to be examined. The petitioner has indulged in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4. No doubt, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 in Crl.P.No.6660 of 2025. However, they were granted bail after completing 180 days of judicial custody, as no charge sheet had been filed within the statutory period. The alleged offence took place on 28.04.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 91 days. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner/Accused No.4 had indulged in dealing with 37.00 kgs of ganja, and his role came to light on the basis of the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The seized contraband is of commercial quantity. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim parity with Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were enlarged on bail after remaining in judicial custody beyond the statutory period of 180 days. 6. 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 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5440 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5440 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 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 case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 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:13.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5440 of 2026 Dated 13.07.2026 36 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5440 of 2026 Date: 13.07.2026 RSI