APHC010371882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6023/2026 Between: JITENDRA SINGH,, S/O BALARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O BODHAVILLAGE, BAGHPAT DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH - 250617. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND UNION OF INDIA, , Rep. by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 530003. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: MUSAWRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB) 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 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.1 on bail in Crime No.NCB/VSZU/C.R.No.06 of 2025 of NCB, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. Musawri, 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 a fixed abode. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 33.590 Kgs. of ganja along with three other accused. The petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 351 days. The charge sheet has been filed. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. It would take considerable length of time for the learned Trial Court to take up the matter and dispose of the same, and keeping the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 petitioner in judicial custody for an indefinite period would not be warranted. His fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd.Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)1. 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. 4. Per contra, Mr.Suresh Kumar Routhu, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the charge sheet has already been filed within 180 days and the same is numbered as S.C.No.121 of 2026. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded. Though a detailed counter was filed, the same was returned for want of compliance with certain objections. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 1 (2023) 3 SCR 697 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 8. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that, along with three other accused, he was found in conscious possession of 33.590 Kgs. of ganja. Undoubtedly, the seized contraband is a commercial quantity, though not a colossal quantity. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed within 180 days and the same is numbered as S.C.No.121 of 2026. Of course, there are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh. He has got fixed abode. The petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 351 days. 9. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain supra, wherein, at paragraph No.19, it is held as under: 19.A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. In the case of Mohd.Muslim @ Hussain supra, the petitioner was in judicial custody for a period of seven years and four months. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that keeping the petitioner in judicial custody for an 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 indefinite period of seven years and four months would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court released the petitioner on bail, observing that until the petitioner is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is presumed to be innocent. It was also observed that the trial was progressing at a snail’s pace, wherein thirteen witnesses had been examined and 34 more witnesses were yet to be examined. 11. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha 2 , wherein it was held that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the NDPS Act’. It is important to point out that, in that case, the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than three and a half years. Taking into account the prolonged detention in judicial custody and the absence of any adverse antecedents against the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya 2 MANU/SCOR/83201/2023 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 Pradesh3, wherein the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than two years. The Hon’ble Apex Court enlarged the petitioner on bail, recognizing the precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Whereas, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora4, at paragraph Nos.12 and 13, held as under: 12. In view of the indisputable fact that Smt. X is HIV positive she is entitled of the Human to the benefit under Section 34(2) Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, which reads thus: - "34. (2). In any legal proceeding concerning or relating to an HIV-positive person, the court shall take up and dispose of the proceeding on priority basis." 13. In view of the said provision the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to expedite the trial on priority basis and to dispose of the case as early as possible. 14. Further, in this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh5, 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. 3 MANU/SC/0820/2024 4 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421 5(2020) 12 SCC 122 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 16. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh6, 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. 17. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)7, 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. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo8, at paragraph No.7, while referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, supra, dismissed the bail application. Even though the petitioner was suffering from immune deficiency syndrome, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the bail application. In the instant case, there are no procedural violations either at the time of arrest of the petitioner or seizure of the contraband. The charge sheet was filed within 180 days, as mentioned supra. The accusation is well founded against the petitioner. 6(1999) 9 SCC 429 7(1990) 1 SCC 95 8 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16021 of 2023 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, Lalrintluanga Sailo, 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. 20. 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:11.08.2026 RSI 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6023 of 2026 Dated 11.08.2026 42 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6023 of 2026 Date: 11.08.2026 RSI