APHC010378442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6139/2026 Between: 1. MANDI GANESH, S/OGAJIRAM AGE 47 YEARS, CHITRAKONDA ULLAGE AND MANDAL, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. 2. MAJJI SUBHASH, S/O.JOGGU,AGED 33 YEARS,CHINNA GANGAVARAM VILLAGE,G.K.VEEDI MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT 3. KIMUDU RAJARAO, S/O.SUKDEV, AGED 24 YEARS,POLAVARAM VI LAGE, KOYYURU MANDAL,ASR DISTRICT. 4. PANGI PASU, S/O.MANGI PANGI, AGED 20 YEARS PUMA TEKUPUDUR VILLAGE,CHITRAKONDA MANDAL,MALKANGIRI D STRICT, ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AndhraPradesh , Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 on bail in F.I.R.No.17 of 2026 of Y.Ramavaram 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. Mr.Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. The Petitioners undertake 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 Petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the Petitionersare released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they 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 Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3 5. On perusal of the record, the allegation against the Petitioners is that they indulged in dealing with 250 kilograms of ganja. This is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The Petitioners were arrested on 21.04.2026. They have been in judicial custody for the past 100 days. So far, only six witnesses have been examined, and even a substantial portion of the investigation has not been completed. 6. It is noted that Petitioner Nos.1, 3, and 4 each have five adverse and similar criminal antecedents, and Petitioner No.2 has eight adverse and similar antecedents, all reported under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, the pendency of which has not been disclosed in the petition. 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 refusal 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. 12026 SCC Online 188 4 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. 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 inState of Kerala v. Rajesh4, at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under ‘the NDPS Act’ can be granted only 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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 quanon 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 supra, the request of the Petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the investigation is at a crucial stage. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioners have not committed any offence or that they would refrain from committing offences in future if enlarged on bail. This Court finds no merits in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition 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: 30.07.2026 PRA 6 41 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6139 of 2026 Date: 30.07.2026 PRA