APHC010323922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5195/2026 Between: 1. BODDAPATI TEJA KIRAN,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA,AGED 31 YEARS, OCC. SELF-EMPLOYEE,R/O. 4-130, SRINIVASA NAGAR, VAKALAPUDI VILLAGE,KAKINADA RURAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533 005. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 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: 1. BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in F.I.R.No.25 of 2026 of K.D.Peta Police Station, Anakapalli District registered for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner 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.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he was found in conscious possession and transportation of 40 kgs of ganja in a car illegally. Accused No.2 was also found in possession of 10 kgs of ganja being transported by him on a bike. Thus, the total contraband involved in this case is 50 kgs. Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely 3 applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So far, only six witnesses have been examined, and even the material portion of the investigation is not completed. The Petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 89 days only. 6. There are three similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner, i.e., Cr.No.184 of 2024 of Devarapalli Police Station, Cr.No.104 of 2023 of Kakinada Port Police Station, and Cr.No.99 of 2021 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. In addition, there are ten more adverse antecedents against the Petitioner, i.e., Cr.No.64 of 2012 under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’) of Peddapuram Police Station; Cr.No.499 of 2017 under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) of Sarpavaram Police Station; Cr.No.25 of 2010 under Section 379 of ‘the IPC’ of Rajahmundry II Town Police Station; Cr.No.176 of 2015 under Section 109 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ of Amalapuram Town Police Station; Cr.No.02 of 2024 under Section 110(E) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ of Sarpavaram Police Station; Cr.No.19 of 2016 under Sections 380 and 454 of ‘the IPC’ of Jaddangi Police Station; Cr.No.280 of 2015 under Section 110(E) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ of Peddapuram Police Station; Cr.No.165 of 2012 under Sections 380 and 457 of ‘the IPC’ of Gudivada I Town Police Station; Cr.No.131 of 2012 under Sections 380 and 457 of ‘the IPC’ of Gudivada I Town Police Station; and Cr.No.186 of 2014 under Sections 380 and 457 of ‘the IPC’ of Palakollu Police Station. In the present case, the 4 Petitioner has not disclosed in the bail petition the pendency of the aforesaid antecedents against him. 7. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,1, wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refu sal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication. 8. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 1 2026 SCC Online 188 5 9. In this connection, it is also relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan, Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as the investigation is at crucial stage. 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. 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:27.07.2026 PRA 7 25 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5195 of 2026 Date: 27.07.2026 PRA