Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9276 (AP)

Gollori Nagu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/7304/2026 · 2026-08-30

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010440482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7304/2026 Between: 1. GOLLORI NAGU, S/O LATE RAMU, AGED 24 YEARS,OCC. CAB DRIVER,R/O NEAR A.P.G.T.W. SCHOOL, R.V. NAGAR VILLAGE,G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.49 of 2025 on the file of Koyyuru Police Station, registered for the alleged offences punishable under 2 Sections 111(2) (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), and Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Dasari Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the Police. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and therefore, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. It is further submitted that Accused No.6 was already enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2026 in Crl.P.No.6713 of 2026. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 3. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, contending that the Petitioner is a transporter and that there are two similar adverse antecedents reported against him. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was filed well within the statutory period of 180 days and that the accusation against the Petitioner is well founded. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, this Court, in Crl.P.No.6713 of 2026, vide order dated 19.08.2026, enlarged Accused No.6 on bail on the ground that he 3 was at an impressionable age of 20 years and was a student. It was further alleged therein that Accused No.6 had accompanied Accused No.1 on a scooty for a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/-, and there were no similar adverse antecedents reported against him. Hence, the circumstances under which Accused No.6 was enlarged on bail cannot be equated with the present case. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is a seasonal offender, with similar adverse antecedents reported against him. The Petitioner had acted as a transporter and was arrested on the spot while carrying 25.520 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The prosecution further alleges that the Petitioner induced vulnerable young persons to associate themselves with the commission of the offence. The charge sheet was filed well within 180 days, i.e., on 17.04.2026, and numbered as NSC.No.237 of 2026. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody for 283 days pursuant to his arrest on 21.11.2025. 7. In view of the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, and considering his adverse antecedents, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the request for enlarging the Petitioner on bail is rejected. 8. 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: 31.08.2026 SSA/JS 4 170 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7304 of 2026 31.08.2026 SSA/JS