APHC010411622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6759/2026 Between: 1. SIRAGAM MATHYAKONDAMMA, W/O. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. SALUGU VILLAGE, PADERU MANDAL,ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 531024. 2. MEDA MODHESH, S/O. CHINNABBAYI,R/O. MANJARI COLONY, BESIDE HANUMAN STATUE,MAJARI, G. MADUGULA MANDAL,ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND UNION OF INDIA, Represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, Narcotics Control Bureau, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SPL PP FOR NCB) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 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.4 and 5 on bail in Crime No.NCB/VSZU/CR.No.09 of 2025 of NCB, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocents of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. They have not committed any offence. They are law-abiding citizens. They have got fixed abode. They are the sole breadwinners of the family. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 4.291 Kgs of Hashish Oil. The petitioners were arrested on 24.12.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 260 days. The charge sheet has been filed in this case. The petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that this Court 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 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 petitioners, stating that the charge sheet has already been filed. The accusations against the petitioners are well founded. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB has filed a detailed counter and submits that the search, seizure and recovery proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, in the presence of independent witnesses, and were duly videographed and documented. It is further submitted that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, the reasons for their arrest were duly explained to them, and their relatives were informed accordingly. It is also contended that the rigours of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ are applicable and that the petitioners have failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed thereunder for grant of bail. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners have criminal antecedents and have suppressed or misrepresented material facts before this Court, and that the judgments relied upon by them are either distinguishable or inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, it is contended that, having regard to the nature of the offence, the recovery of the contraband from the conscious 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 possession of the accused and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, the bail petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” 9. As seen from the record, the petitioners were arrested on 24.12.2025 while they were found in possession of and transporting 4.291 kgs of Hashish Oil. The seized contraband is of commercial quantity. After completion of a thorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the past 260 days. The accusations levelled against the petitioners are well-founded. There is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner/Accused No.4. However, the details of the said antecedent have not been disclosed in the present petition. 10. 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.,1 wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of 12026 SCC Online 188 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. 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. 11. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora2, 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. 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo3, 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 2 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421 3 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16021 of 2023 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 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 petitioners or seizure of the contraband. The charge sheet was filed within 180 days, as mentioned supra. The accusations are well founded against the petitioners. 13. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh4, 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. 15. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh5, 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. 16. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)6, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24, observed that illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs has 4(2020) 12 SCC 122 5(1999) 9 SCC 429 6(1990) 1 SCC 95 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 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. 17. 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 petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and that they would not commit any offence if they are released on bail. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. 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:10.09.2026 RSI 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.6759 of 2026 Dated 10.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6759 of 2026 Date: 10.09.2026 RSI