APHC010416682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6844/2026 Between: 1. MIRIYALA SAI TEJA, S/O MALLIKHARJUNA RAO LATE AGED 30 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEER/O H.NO.15-13-123/23, 2ND LANE ZIA UDDIN NAGAE, OLD GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer Old Guntur Police Station,Rep.by public prosecutor High Court, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VARSHITHA KALIGINEEDI 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.3 on bail in F.I.R.No.116 of 2026 of Old Guntur Police Station, Guntur Districtregistered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections8(c) read with 22(c) and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs 2 and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity „the NDPS Act‟) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNS‟). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2026, based on credible information regarding possession of narcotic drugs near the Railway Track at “0” Lane, Balaji Nagar, Old Guntur, the police secured mediators and proceeded to the scene.Accused Nos.2 to 5 were apprehended, while Accused No.1, who is absconding, is alleged to have procured MDM substance from Bengaluru.Pursuant to his instructions, Accused No.2 collected a parcel containing the said substance from a private bus.It is further alleged that Accused Nos.2 to 5 transferred amounts through PhonePe towards its purchase and assembled near the scene to share the same.During the search, the police recovered 18 grams of MDM substance, mobile phones, and a mini electronic weighing machine. The Petitioner/Accused No.3 along with Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.K.Varshitha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated, with no specific overt act attributed against him evidencing conscious possession of the contraband. He further submits that the contraband weighing 18 grams of MDM was admittedly recovered from a parcel collected by Accused No.2, and not from the exclusive possession of the Petitioner. The alleged PhonePe transactions attributed against Accused No.3 are matters requiring strict proof 3 at trial and cannot, at this stage, justify denial of bail. It is further submitted that the investigation is substantially complete, all material evidence has already been seized, and no further custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is warranted. The Petitioner, a permanent resident of Guntur with no criminal antecedents, is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, and therefore urges that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave in nature. It is contended that the contraband seized in the present case is a psychotropic substance, and the role of Accused No.3 cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the recovery was effected from Accused No.2. The prosecution asserts that the digital transactions attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 clearly establish his nexus with the illegal trade, and such transactions are part of the incriminating material collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the menace of drug trafficking poses a serious threat to society, and granting bail at this stage would send a wrong signal and adversely affect the ongoing efforts to curb such activities. It is further submitted that though substantial investigation has been completed, the possibility of the Petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed. 4 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 supplied 18 grams of MDM from Bengaluru. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 received the packets from the bus, and the Petitioner/Accused No.3 was also arrested on the spot. It is alleged that Accused No.3 transferred an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the purchase of 10 grams of MDM from Accused No.1. The alleged contraband is a commercial quantity. Accused No.1 is yet to be arrested. The Petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 91 days. The investigation is at a progressive stage, and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. 7. In this connection, it isrelevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court.InUnion of India v. Ram Samujh1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Courtat 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. InDurand 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 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 5 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 inState 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 quanon 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 Rajeshsupra,the request of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 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. 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:01.09.2026 PRA 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6844 of 2026 Date: 01.09.2026 PRA