APHC010343252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5514/2026 Between: PANGI CHANDAR, S/O DOMBU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/VALMIKI,R/O KUMMARIPALLI VILLAGE, DUPPALAWADA PANCHAYAT,G.K.VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT.PRESENTLY CONFINED IN CENTRAL PRISON,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station HouseOfficer, II Town Law and Order Police Station,Rajamahendravaram,Represented by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5514 of 2026 Dated 24.07.2026 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.1 on bail in Crime No.165 of 2023 of Rajahmundry II Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 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.Duggirala Subash, 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 is the sole breadwinner of his family. 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 to the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against the petitioner are well founded. Hence, he prayed that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5514 of 2026 Dated 24.07.2026 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. 1. The allegation against him is that he supplied 180.00 kg of ganja to the other accused, which constitutes a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2025 pursuant to the execution of a P.T. Warrant and has been in judicial custody for the past 256 days. He is a permanent resident of ASR District and has a fixed place of abode. After a thorough investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed. The accusations against the petitioner are well founded. 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 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 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5514 of 2026 Dated 24.07.2026 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 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:24.07.2026 RSI ‘ 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5514 of 2026 Dated 24.07.2026 59 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5514 of 2026 Date: 24.07.2026 RSI