Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/3655/2026 of Panchadara Swami Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3655/2026 Between: 1. PANCHADARA SWAMI, S/O P VEERA BABU,AGED ABOUT 23
APHC010231702026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3655/2026
Between:
1. PANCHADARA SWAMI, S/O P VEERA BABU,AGED ABOUT 23
YEARS, R/O D.N0.3-142,KOBBARITHOTA, VUYYURU, KRISHNA
DISTRICT,PRESENTLY
RESIDING
AT
VALU
TIMMAPURAM
ROAD,YSR TITKO APARTMENT, PEDDAPURAM,EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
2. GOMPU APPARAO, S/O G RAMBABU,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
D.NO.
10-4-7,YSR
TITKO
APARTMENT,
PEDDAPURAM,EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH
S.H.O,
KIRLAMPUDI
POLICE
STATION,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...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 Court may be pleased to release the petitioners/Accused No.3 and 7, on bail in connection with in Crime No.210
of 2025, on the file of the Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. KARRE SATYANANDAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3655 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 7, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 210 of 2025 on the file of the Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) Section of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2025 at about 03:00 p.m., near the quay of Polavaram canal, Burugupudi village, Kirlampudi Mandal, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kirlampudi, along with his staff, mediators, and a Gazetted Officer, while conducting a raid, apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 7 when they were transporting 24.690 kgs of ganja on three motorcycles, and the said contraband was seized under the cover of a mediators’ report.
3. Heard Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They were falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 11.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioners.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 24.690 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 11.12.2025. The petitioners were arrested while they were in possession of the contraband. She would further submit that the investigation is completed in this matter and charge sheet is also filed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 24.690 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed in this matter.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122
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 prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted.
21. The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 05.05.2026. UPS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3655 of 2026 Date: 05.05.2026
UPS