APHC010340882026 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: 5460/2026 Between: 1. ALLAKUNTA RAMESH, S/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 1-119/9, LAXMIDEVIPALLI VILLAGE, BIKANOOR MANDALNIZAMABAD DISTRICT, NOW KAMAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA 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 Crime No.23 of 2022 of Chinturu Police Station, East Godvari District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 2 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.D.Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that nothing was found in the possession of the Petitioner. The vehicle was found carrying 120 kgs of ganja, in which there is no trace connecting the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. He is innocent of the alleged offence and has not committed any crime. 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, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submits 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. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed within 180 days, as the accusation is well- founded. 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 Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in this case. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. He was arrested on 23.01.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 185 days. The alleged offence occurred four years prior to his arrest. The 3 crime was registered in the year 2022 vide Cr.No.23 of 2022. The Petitioner is alleged to have been involved in dealing with 120 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The accusation, as per the averments in the charge sheet, appears well‑founded. The plea of the Petitioner that some other persons were present in the car in which 120 kgs of ganja was found cannot be appreciated at this stage, as it is a matter to be decided in the course of trial. 6. In this connection, it is also 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh supra, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the accusation is well‑founded. As the charge sheet has been filed within the statutory period of 180 days, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail, and hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. 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 5 29 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5460 of 2026 Date: 27.07.2026 PRA