SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 620

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Anbar Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 12341/2025



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:4455

APHC010640932025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12341/2025

Between:

1. A NBAR KHAN, S/O. SALIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 68 GA,

HIRANA MARG VILLAGE,JAMNER,TEHSIL SHAJAPUR, MADHYA

PRADESH

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its public prosecutor,High

Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying

that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal

Petition, the High CourtPleased to release the petitioner/Accused-1 on bail in SC

.NDPS 457 of 2023, in crime no. 176 of 2021 Yelamachili Rural Police Station,

Anakapalli District on the file I Additonal District & Sessions Judge-Special Judge for

Trial of Offences Under NDPS Act, Visakhpatnam and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:4455

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12341 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has

been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in

Crime No.176 of 2021 of Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, Anakapalli District,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read

with 8(C) of the NDPS Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 16.09.2021, this

petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 224 kgs of Ganja

while they were transporting the same. When the police persons detained this

petitioner and other accused, the petitioner escaped from the place of seizure.

Subsequently, he was arrested on 19.08.2025.

3. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

on behalf of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was

arrested on 19.08.2025, since then, he has been in judicial custody. He would

further submit that the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to

furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioner by imposing any

conditions.

##PAGE3##

3

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation

is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is

224 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The Statutory period of 180

days is not over. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for

dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2026:APHC:4455 at Paragraph

Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:

8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has

mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted

bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty

and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to

justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the

accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and

health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to

have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament.

19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the

grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non

obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions

are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the

court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the

accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar

against granting bail applies.

20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top