Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/3906/2026 of Mahinder Singh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 May 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. MAHINDER SINGH, S/O LAXMAN SINGHAGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O KL PURAM, GANESH
APHC010247412026
IN THE H
(
TUESD
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMIN
Between:
1. MAHINDER
SINGH,
YEARS,R/O
TEMPLE,CANTONME
2. TAKU NARSIMMA SI
GANESH TEMPLE, C
6305504041.AADHAR
1. THE STATE OF AND
Court of A.P., Amarav
Petition under Section
praying that in the circums
Criminal Petition, the High
and A3 on Regular Bail in
Police Station, registered f
the NDPS Act pending tr
Court may deem fit and pro
Counsel for the Petitioner
1.KOTHURU APPARAO
2.APPA RAO KOTHURU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
DAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
NAL PETITION NO: 3906/2026
,
S/O
LAXMAN
SINGHAGED
AB
KL
PURAM,
ENT,VIZIANAGARAMDISTRICT.
INGH, S/O TAKI NANAK SINGHA/29,
CANTONMENT,VIZIANAGARAM DISTR
R 7918 0351 3939.
...PETITIONER/ACC
AND
HRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosec
ati,
...RESPONDENT/COMP
n 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528
stances stated in the Memorandum of G
Courtmay be pleased to Enlarge the Pe
connection with Crime No. 354/2025 of
for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20
rial, on such terms and conditions as t
oper in the interest of justice
r/accused(S):
O ALIAS APPAJI
U
RATAPA
BOUT
GANESH
C/SINGH,
ICT, CELL
CUSED(S)
cutor, High
PLAINANT
8 of BNSS
Grounds of
etitioners/AI
f Gandepalli
0(b)(ii)(C) of
this Honble
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3906/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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:
1. This is the second bail petition filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.3 under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No. 354 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.11.2022 at about 21:50 hours, on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with staff, mediators, and a Gazetted Officer, conducted a raid on the road leading from Gandepalli to N.T. Rajapuram, at the outskirts of Gandepalli village. During the operation, a car bearing registration No. AP 39 QH 0222 was found parked. The petitioners (A.1 to A.3) were found inside the vehicle, while 13 other persons allegedly escaped. Upon search, the accused were found in possession of 21.7 kilograms of ganja packed in six packets. The contraband, along with mobile phones and the vehicle, was seized, and the accused were apprehended and registered the present crime.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that they have been in judicial custody since 06.11.2025, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and that they are the sole breadwinners of their respective families. He also further submits that they are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and to furnish adequate sureties.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition. She submits that the quantity of contraband seized, i.e., 21.7 kilograms of ganja, constitutes commercial quantity, thereby attracting the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. She further contended that the petitioners have criminal antecedents; A.1 is involved in four other cases and A.3 in three other cases. She further contended that the police have also seized a substantial quantity of gold ornaments weighing about 622 kilograms and copper weighing about 80 kilograms from the possession of the accused at the time of their apprehension. She further submit that the prosecution, indicates the involvement of the accused in organized and serious criminal activities. She further brought to the notice of this Court that there is no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application. It is apprehended that if they released on bail, the petitioners may indulge in similar offences and abscond.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and a fair look at the material placed on record before this Court, it is to be noted that the present petition is a second bail application. It is a settled principle of law that successive bail applications are maintainable only when there is a substantial change in circumstances or when new grounds are made out. In the present case, except reiterating the grounds urged in the earlier bail petition, no significant change in circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court. The filing of the charge sheet, by itself, cannot be treated as a change of circumstance warranting reconsideration, particularly in cases arising under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity. It is to be further noted that there are criminal antecedents against the accused and the existence of such antecedents raises a reasonable apprehension that the petitioners may indulge in similar offences if enlarged on bail. The possibility of repetition of offences and the likelihood of absconding cannot be ruled out.
7. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of commission, the seizure of contraband, no change of circumstances since the earlier bail rejected and criminal antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
_________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dated 05.05.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3906/2026 Dated 05.05.2026
KKV