##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:20171 APHC010205232026

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3091/2026 Between:

1. A MIT KUMAR TIWARI, S/O AJAY PRAKASH TIWARI,AGED ABOUT

32 YEARS.OCCUPATION CAB DRIVER,R/O D.NO. 248C/24, HASTING ROAD,ASHOK NAGAR, NEARTELYANI NURSING

HOME,ALLAHABAD DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH - 211001

2. J AGDISH KUMAR, S/O BANWARI,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.OCCUPATION CAB DRIVER,R/O D.NO. 422, BHARATHI KAPURA, KORSAND,BASHMAIPUR, PHAPHAMAU,ALLAHABAD

DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH - 211013.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

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

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

2

2026:APHC:20171

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3091 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in Crime.No.48 of 2025 of Ananthagiri Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and

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

2. Heard Mr.Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners and other accused were found in possession of 150 kgs of ganja on 24.11.2025 and the police

arrested the accused and seized the said contraband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. The petitioners

3

2026:APHC:20171

undertake to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting

bail to the petitioners.

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 petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on the spot while they were in possession of 150 kgs of ganja. No doubt the seized ganja is a commercial quantity. 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 petitioners have not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, they may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The inventory has also not completed. The petitioners were arrested on 24.11.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 153

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.

4

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

legi