Andhra Pradesh HC: Bail Granted for Commercial Quantity NDPS Seizure as Investigation Stalls Post-Statutory Period

Failure by investigating agencies to file a charge sheet within the mandatory 180-day period or seek a lawful extension of remand has paved the way for the release of an accused involved in a massive 370 kg ganja seizure. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh underscored that even in cases involving colossal quantities of narcotics, the fundamental right to liberty prevails when statutory procedural timelines are ignored by the prosecution.

In a decisive hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao adjudicated upon the second bail application of an individual accused of being part of a syndicate transporting commercial quantities of contraband. The court examined the interplay between the stringent conditions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the procedural safeguards provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Court Observations on Statutory Compliance

The court noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since April 4, 2026. Despite the lapse of 180 days, the prosecution failed to file the final report or seek an extension of the remand period. The bench observed that while the quantity of ganja involved was indeed "colossal," the lack of an application for extension of remand was a critical factor. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The seized contraband is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. Substantial part of the investigation with regard to the alleged role attributed to the petitioner has been completed. However, the charge sheet has not yet been filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days. No application seeking extension of the remand of the petitioner has been filed."

Parity with Co-Accused and Conditions for Release

Justice Rao highlighted that the petitioner, being a permanent resident with a fixed abode and no adverse antecedents, was unlikely to abscond. Referencing an earlier order in Crl.P.No.2105 of 2026, the court found the petitioner entitled to parity. The Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.5 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Background

The case arose from Crime No. 102 of 2025 at Makavarapalem Police Station, involving the seizure of 370 kg of ganja. The petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.5 based on a confessional statement by Accused No.4. The petitioner moved the High Court seeking bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that he was a law-abiding citizen and the sole earner for his family. The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, citing the ongoing investigation and the risk of the petitioner absconding. However, the court found that since the statutory period had lapsed without a charge sheet or extension request, and citing the precedent in Crl.P.No.2105 of 2026 where a similarly placed accused was released, the petitioner deserved bail. The Court allowed the petition while imposing a personal bond and travel restrictions.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8209/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:41492
Case Title: Kaisarla Sai Durga Prasad V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): RAJESH MAJJI, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17795