APHC010322272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5164/2026 Between: KAISARLA SAI DURGA PRASAD, S/O RAMANAAGE 25 YEARS, PAPAMPETA VILLAGE,GOLUGINDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Makavarapalem Police StationRep. by the Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra PradeshAmaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 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.5 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.Arrabolu Sai Naveen, 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. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working as an employee of Linken Pharmaceutical Company and was attending to his employment at the relevant time. It is submitted that the petitioner did not act as a pilot and that he is ready to produce sufficient material to establish his alibi. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition be allowed. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 4. 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 six witnesses have been examined. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition, as the investigation is still pending and some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 and is alleged to have acted as a pilot for the transportation of 370.00 Kgs. of ganja. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.1. Whether such confession is relevant or not is a matter for trial. The petitioner is also alleged to have indulged in dealing with 370.00 Kgs. of ganja, which is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The petitioner was not arrested at the spot and had escaped from the scene of offence. The petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 135 days. The investigation is at a progressive stage. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. So far, only six witnesses have been examined. The contention of the petitioner with regard to the alibi cannot be appreciated at the stage of considering the bail application. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 7. In this regard it is apposite refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar1, wherein it is held that a plea of alibi is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act,1972, and not a statutory defence. Once the prosecution establishes the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence, the burden lies heavily on the accused to prove the plea of alibi by strict and cogent evidence. Thus, it is held at paragraph Nos.22 and 23 as under: 22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context: “The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.” 23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter- evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the 1 (1997) 1 SCC 283 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379] ; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63] . 8. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh2, held that the plea of alibi is a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, and the burden lies on the accused to prove it by strict and cogent evidence after the prosecution establishes its case. Thus, it is held at paragraph No.24 as under: 24. The principles regarding the plea of alibi, as can be appreciated from the various decisions [Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 358; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 SCC 283 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 333; Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 204 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 67; Vijay Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 4 SCC 749 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 733; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 3 SCC 37 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 702; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673; Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 17 SCC 664 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 109] of this Court, are: This extract is taken from Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 172 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 40 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1300 at page 178 24.1. It is not part of the General Exceptions under IPC and is instead a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This extract is taken from Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 172 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 40 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1300 at page 178 24.2. This plea being taken does not lessen the burden of the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene of the crime and had participated therein. This extract is taken from Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 172 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 40 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1300 at page 178 24.3. Such plea is only to be considered subsequent to the prosecution having discharged, satisfactorily, its burden. This extract is taken from Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 172 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 40 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1300 at page 179 2 (2023) 10 SCC 172 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 24.4. The burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea. The same must be achieved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence. This extract is taken from Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 172 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 40 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1300 at page 179 24.5. It is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the spot of the crime. In other words, a standard of “strict scrutiny” is required when such a plea is taken. 9. Furthermore, this Court in Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. State A.P.,3 held that a plea of alibi raises a disputed question of fact, which can be decided only after appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be considered at the stage of discharge. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly refused to discharge the accused. Thus, it is held at paragraph No.5 as under: 5.The trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order on the ground that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is only required to see whether the uncontroverted allegations made by the prosecution and the evidence produced in support of the said allegations prima facie disclose the commission of the offences by the accused or not and that the disputed question of fact and the plea of defence taken by the accused cannot be taken into consideration at pre-trial stage. This Court does not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court. When the accused has taken a plea of alibi, undoubtedly it is a matter relating to question of fact as to whether the accused was present at the scene of offence at the time of the offence or not. In a way, it amounts to taking a plea of alibi by the accused. It is settled law that the burden of proving the said plea of alibi is on the accused. Therefore, they are all disputed questions of fact which requires evidence and appreciation of the same in the final adjudication of the case. The said ground that accused No. 4 was elsewhere at the time of commission of the offence cannot be a ground to discharge him from the said case. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this criminal revision case. 3 MANU/AP/0851/2022 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 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. 4(1999) 9 SCC 429 5(1990) 1 SCC 95 6(2020) 12 SCC 122 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh, Kamal Prasad, Sanikommmu Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, 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 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. 15. 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: 17.08.2026 RSI 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5164 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5164 of 2026 Date: 17.08.2026 RSI