APHC010204982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3094/2026 Between:

1. C HELLURI NAGESH BABU, S/O. KRISHNA, AGED 40 YEARS,D.NO.4-107, DAKAMARRI VILLAGE,BHIMILI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,AADHAAR NO.3776 1019 2011.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATHI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

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

1. SINGURU SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3094 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.8 on bail in Crime.No.156 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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 transporting 351.180 kgs of ganja on 23.09.2025 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, he did not commit the offence, he was falsely implicated in this case, he never indulged in transportation of contraband, the police did not follow mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, investigation in this case is completed except receipt of FSL report and filing of charge sheet and no ganja is seized from his possession, he has fixed abode and ready to furnish surety and ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while opposing bail contended that, investigation is under progress. The seized contraband in the case is 383.82 kgs, which is huge commercial quantity. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it is very difficult to secure his presence and also the statutory period is not over and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 374 in paragraph No.16 which is usefully extracted hereunder:

“16. Coming back to the facts of the instant cse, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of the law laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of T.N., (2021) 4 SCC 1: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246, wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside.”

7. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not come to the petitioner’s aid. It is evident that the petitioner/Accused No.8 was arrested