APHC010436462026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7233/2026 Between: 1. NATTALA PRADEEP PRAMODH, S/O RAVI, AGED 21 YEARS.STUDENT,R/O D.NO. 19-27-6/1, NEAR SATYANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE,RANGIREEJUVEEDHI, I TOWN AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. 2. KARNNAMKOTT HARSH ALIAS HARSHA, S/O RAJESH, AGED 21 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 25-8-129, SIVALAYAM STREET,I TOWN AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7233 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.131 of 2026 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. D. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there are no similar adverse antecedents against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 31 days and were allegedly found in possession of 2.00 kgs of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is involved in a similar offence. He further submits that the petitioners were arrested on the spot and that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7233 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on 07.08.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the last 31 days. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioners were found in possession of 2.00 kgs of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. The petitioners were arrested on the spot. As regards Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, there are no similar adverse antecedents reported against him. However, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 has one similar adverse antecedent, vide Crime No.49 of 2023 of Chithapalli Police Station. 6. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 , at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail. 7. It is also noticed that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 has not disclosed in the present petition the said similar adverse antecedent pending against him. 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.,2 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. 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 22026 SCC Online 188 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7233 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 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 refusal 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. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on bail, subject to certain stringent following conditions. i. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ii. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7233 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 iii. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail. v. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. vi. The Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court. 9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 and his antecedent involvement in a similar offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail at this juncture. Hence, the petition insofar as Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is concerned, is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.09.2026 Pmk 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7233 of 2026 Dated 07.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7233 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 Pmk