APHC010369022026 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: 5965/2026 Between: 1. PERICHARLA DURGA PRASAD RAJU, S/O SURYANARAYANAHINDU, AGED 31 YEARS.RESIDENT OF UNDI VILLAGE,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Being represented by Station House Officer,Garthedu police Station, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. I BALA SUBRAHMANYAM 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.6 on bail in F.I.R.No.06 of 2026 of Gurthedu Police Station, Polavaram registered 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 2. Mr.I.Bala Subrahmanyam, 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 Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.6 in this case. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. However, it is alleged by the prosecution that the Petitioner acted as a transporter in the illegal and conscious transportation of 22 kgs of ganja. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 124 days only. The charge sheet has not yet been filed. So far, only five witnesses have been 3 examined. A substantial portion of the investigation is yet to be completed, and the investigation is at a crucial stage. 6. 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. 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 substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail. 9. 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 juncture inasmuch as the investigation is at crucial stage. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this 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 9 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5965 of 2026 Date: 27.07.2026 PRA