APHC010371522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5995/2026 Between: 1. NADIGATIA GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE DEMUDU, AGE 27 YEARS,R/O TALLA CHEEDIKADA VILLAGE,LINGAMDARA PANCHAYAT, GOLUGONDA MANDAL,ASR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati,Through Station House Officer,Koyyuru Police Station,Alluri Sitharama Raju District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA 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 F.I.R.No.89 of 2024 of Koyyuru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District registered for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Sravan Kumar Naidana, 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 allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he had purchased 105 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, and was transporting it illegally. The Petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 136 days. So far, five witnesses have been examined. There is one similar criminal antecedent 3 reported against the Petitioner in Cr.No.59 of 2023 of Matturu Police Station, Bapatla District, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’. The Petitioner has not disclosed the pendency of this antecedent in the petition, though the same is reflected in the remand report. 6. 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 refu sal 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. 7. 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 1 2026 SCC Online 188 4 application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh4, 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. 11. 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, 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the investigation is at a crucial stage. This Court, upon perusal of the record, finds that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has not committed any offence or that he would refrain from committing offences in future if enlarged on bail. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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:28.07.2026 PRA 6 81 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5995 of 2026 Date: 28.07.2026 PRA