APHC010407942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6704/2026 Between: GOLLI KUMAR SWAMI, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,OCCUPATION CAR DFIVER,R/O. KOTHA MALLAMPETA VILLAGE,GOLUGONDA MANDAL,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra PradeshAt Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PULAPALLI BABJI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6704 of 2026 Dated 12.08.2026 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.3 on bail in Crime No.102 of 2025 of Makavarapalem Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences 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.Pulapalli Babji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. 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.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the contraband involved in the case is 370.00 kgs of ganja. So far, only seven witnesses have been examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6704 of 2026 Dated 12.08.2026 Petition, as the investigation is still pending and some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. 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.3. This Court granted bail to Accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2105 of 2026, vide order dated 24.03.2026, as he had been in judicial custody for 180 days. The order of the learned Sessions Judge extending the period of remand beyond 180 days was set aside in the said case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 154 days only. He was arrested on 11.03.2026 and has not completed the statutory period of 180 days. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in dealing with 370.00 Kgs of ganja, which was found in fifteen bags. The role of the petitioner has come to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.4, 6 and 8, who were arrested at the spot. So far, only seven witnesses have been examined and the material portion of the investigation is yet to be completed. 6. 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. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6704 of 2026 Dated 12.08.2026 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 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 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 3(2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6704 of 2026 Dated 12.08.2026 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 and that he would not commit any offence if he is released on bail. 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: 12.08.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6704 of 2026 Dated 12.08.2026 25 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6704 of 2026 Date: 12.08.2026 RSI