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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17398

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Gorli Arjuna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRLP 11009/2025



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:57802

APHC010567432025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 11009 & 11011 of 2025

Crl.P.No.11009 of 2025

Between:

1.GORLI ARJUNA, WATER SERVICING CENTRE, RAVANAPALLI

VILLAGE,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT

2.SINGAMPALLI DURGA PRASAD, CULTIVATION, RAVANAPALLI

VILLAGE,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by its Public

Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravathi

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Crl.P.No.11011 of 2025

Between:

1.GORLI GANGUNAIDU ALIAS CHINNA, RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE,

GOLUGONDA MANDALANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by its Public

Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.PARDHA SARADHI A V

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

##PAGE2##

2

Dr2.0Y2L5R:A,JPHC:57802

Crl.P.Nos.11009&11011of2025

Dated24.12.2025

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 11009 and 11011 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common

order as the case is arising from same crime, but the petitioners are different.

2. The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 480 and 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to

enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 on bail in Crime No.208 of

2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against

the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 herein for the offences punishable

under Sections 20(b)(ii) (c) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are arrayed as

Accused Nos. 2, 6, and 7 in the above crime, are alleged to have been

involved in the illegal possession and transportation of 200 kilograms of ganja,

which is, undoubtedly, a commercial quantity under provisions of ‘the NDPS

Act.’ The role of the petitioners came to light based on the confession of

Accused No. 2. It is further revealed that three NDPS cases i.e., Cr.No.181 of

2024 in Tangutur Police Station, Cr.No.32 of 2023 in Payakaraopeta Police

Station and Cr.No.262 of 2020 in Golugonda Police Station and one IPC case

##PAGE3##

3

Dr2.0Y2L5R:A,JPHC:57802

Crl.P.Nos.11009&11011of2025

Dated24.12.2025

i.e., Cr.No.241 of 2020 of Golugonda Police Station are registered against

Accused No. 2, while two NDPS cases i.e., Cr.No.122 of 2023 in

Narasipatnam Rural Police Station and Cr.No. 24 of 2020 in Golugonda Police

Station and one under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) case i.e., Cr.No.262 of 2020 in Golugonda Police Station

are registered against Accused No. 6. However, no adverse antecedents have

been reported against Accused No.7. The petitioners were arrested on

02.09.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 113 days only.

5. Sri A.V.Pardha Saradhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused

Nos.2, 6 and 7 submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely

implicated. Accused No.2 is only shown as absconding in the FIR dated

18.08.2025, without any allegation of conscious possession or transportation

of contraband, while Accused Nos.6 and 7 are not even named therein. The

prosecution relies solely on confessional statements of co accused, which are

inadmissible in view of Tofan Singh v. State of T.N, 1(2021)4SCC1 and‑ Narcotics Control

Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta2. At no point were the Petitioners

found in possession of contraband, and the seizure report itself shows that the

bundles contained flowers, buds and stems, not the flowering or fruiting tops

of cannabis, and thus

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