APHC010154542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2382/2026 Between:

1. K OLA VINODH KUMAR, S/O. NIRANJAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.6-125-6, KOTHAPETA, DHONETOWN,NANDYAL DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING ATFLAT NO.A-112, HAPPY HOME, OLD ITIJUNCTION, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2382 OF 2026 ORDER:-

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail in Crime.No.298 of 2025 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with Section 8(c)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Mr.G.Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 21.3 kgs of ganja on 16.08.2025 and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. The petitioner undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage, inventory is not completed and also the statutory period is not over and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.5 was arrested on 05.03.2026 and the police seized the 21.3 kgs of ganja in possession of other accused. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the view that there is no material to presume that the petitioner has not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, he may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner was arrested on

05.03.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 33 days.

7. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under:

“In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under:

“The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social p