APHC010416402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6842/2026 Between: JANAM JAGANADHAM, S/O. ANAM CHINA BADDA,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,R/O. PANASAPUT VILLAGE, PANASAPUT PANCHAYAT,MUNCHINGIPUT MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6842 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 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 Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.167 of 2021 of I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) and Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr. Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated therein. He submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Hence, he prays that the Criminal Petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that, though the charge sheet has already been filed, the accusations against 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6842 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 the petitioner are well-founded. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the FIR was registered on 14.04.2021. A P.T. Warrant was pending against the petitioner for a considerable period of nearly five years, and the same was executed on 15.06.2026. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confessions of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he had provided his car for the transportation of 94.00 kilograms of ganja. The seized contraband is of commercial quantity. The petitioner has fairly disclosed in the petition that he has two antecedents, vide Cr.Nos.43 of 2024 and 21 of 2024. The charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 86 days only. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the quantity of contraband involved, this Court is of the view that the accusations against the petitioner are well-founded. 6. 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. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6842 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1, 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. 8. In Durand 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 noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under the NDPS Act to effectively combat the menace. 9. 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, and Durand Didier, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the commission of the offence and has also been involved in two similar offences. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, there are no merits in the present case warranting grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 1(1999) 9 SCC 429 2(1990) 1 SCC 95 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6842 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 10. 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: 09.09.2026 RSI 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6842 of 2026 Dated 09.09.2026 52 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6842 of 2026 Date: 09.09.2026 RSI