APHC010359572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5786/2026 Between: SHAIK SALEEM, S/O VALI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/O H.NO. 4-36- 16/2, VISWA BRAHMANA VEEDHI,KT ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, 520001. A.P.AT PRESENT LODGED IN VIJAYAWADA SUB- JAIL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, 522239Through SHO of Krishna Lanka Police Station,Vijayawada, N.T.R. Dist, A.P ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: AMARAVATI LAW CHAMBERS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 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.78 of 2026 of Krishnalanka Police Station, NTR District, 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. 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 is the sole breadwinner of his family. 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, 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 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 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. The petitioner is aged about 27 years. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with the other accused, was in possession and transportation of 30.590 Kgs of ganja. The petitioner was found in possession of 5.60 Kgs of ganja. Section 29 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply to the facts of the case. So far, only twelve witnesses have been examined, and several crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The investigation is at a crucial stage. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced CCTV footage showing that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was somewhere else and was not at the alleged scene of offence, ordinarily, the plea of alibi cannot be exclusively appreciated while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The defence of alibi is a matter of evidence to be established during the trial, and while considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial. Though the plea of alibi is governed by Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the burden of proving 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 the plea of alibi lies upon the accused, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1. 6. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab2 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)3, held that, while deciding an application for anticipatory bail, the Court cannot hold a mini trial or appreciate the evidence in detail. The Court is only required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, his antecedents, the likelihood of his fleeing from justice, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and other relevant considerations. Thus, the defence of alibi ordinarily falls outside the scope of consideration while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 73 days only. 7. The learned Trial Court, in Crl.M.P.Nos.476, 458 and 498, vide order dated 08.05.2026, granted bail to Accused No.5 on the ground that his health condition was not good, as he was suffering from a urinary tract infection and was carrying a urine collection bag. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain medical records showing that the petitioner has been suffering from kidney disease, urinary tract infection, and other ailments. Therefore, the Superintendent, 1 (1997) 1 SCC 283 2(1980) 2 SCC 565 (2020) 5 SCC 1 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 District Jail, Vijayawada, shall provide the petitioner with necessary medical treatment. The contention that the petitioner was elsewhere at the relevant point of time is a matter of trial. The plea of alibi cannot be gone into in the course of deciding the present bail application. 9. 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. 10. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh4, 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. 11. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)5, 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. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh6, at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under the NDPS Act can be granted 4(1999) 9 SCC 429 5(1990) 1 SCC 95 6(2020) 12 SCC 122 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 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. 13. 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. 14. 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:22.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5786 of 2026 Dated 22.07.2026 60 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5786 of 2026 Date: 22.07.2026 RSI