Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused Citing Lack of Criminal Antecedents

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle of liberty by granting bail to two young individuals accused of possessing intermediate quantities of ganja, emphasizing that the absence of prior criminal records and the completion of substantial investigation weigh heavily in favour of the accused. The ruling underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in balancing the severity of narcotics-related charges with the fundamental right to personal freedom during the pendency of a trial.

In a proceeding presided over by the Single Judge Bench of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, the court heard a petition for regular bail involving two accused persons from Karnataka who had been in judicial custody for 49 days following their arrest in a narcotics case.

Key Takeaways

Pre-Trial Detention vs. Liberty

Granting bail to young offenders without criminal history prevents the hardening of first-time accused individuals in prison environments.

Completion of Investigation Milestones

Judicial custody may be curtailed once material witnesses are examined and no custodial interrogation is further required by the police.

Strict Post-Release Monitoring

While granting liberty, the Court ensured rigorous reporting requirements to the local police to prevent potential flight risk of out-of-state residents.

Court Observations and Directions

The Bench took note of the age of the petitioners, who were 21 and 22 years old, and observed that they had been in custody since mid-August 2026. The Court highlighted that the investigation had progressed significantly with the examination of seven witnesses, and the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any prior criminal history that would warrant continued incarceration.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If the petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, there is no likelihood of their absconding, threatening the witnesses, tampering with the evidence or hampering the further course of investigation. There are no adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2."

The Court has the following directions:

"i. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail subject to their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rampachodavaram.

ii. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the limits of the District without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

iv. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

v. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

vi. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If they claim that they do not have passports, they shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Ratio

In the absence of adverse criminal antecedents and where a substantial portion of the investigation is complete, the prolonged incarceration of young accused persons is unnecessary, provided that stringent conditions are imposed to secure their presence during trial and prevent interference with the administration of justice.

Background

The case arose from Crime No. 67 of 2026 registered at Chintoor Police Station, involving the alleged illegal possession and dealing of 10.00 kgs of ganja. The Petitioners were charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Petitioners moved the High Court under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the duo were sole breadwinners and had been falsely implicated, undertaking to abide by all judicial conditions. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation and the risk of the petitioners who are residents of Karnataka absconding from the process of law. However, noting the 49-day custody period and the lack of a request for custodial interrogation, the Court allowed the criminal petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7458/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:41936
Case Title: Harish R And Another Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 17800