Bail Granted as Custody Exceeds Default Period Without Charge Sheet: Andhra Pradesh HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Incarceration beyond the mandatory default period without a filed charge sheet entitles an accused to statutory bail, even in cases involving massive commercial quantities of contraband. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to an accused held in custody for 193 days in a commercial quantity NDPS matter after the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the statutory 180-day window.
A single-judge bench comprising Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao was hearing a criminal petition filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in connection with Crime No.156 of 2025 registered at Kirlampudi Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Key Takeaways
Preeminence of Statutory Period: Incarceration past the 180-day default period without a charge sheet entitles the accused to bail despite commercial quantity allegations.
Pending Remand Extensions Insufficient: Merely filing a remand extension petition without obtaining judicial orders before the period expires cannot curtail default bail rights.
Co-Accused Confessions: Implication solely based on confessions of co-accused weighed alongside prolonged custody justifies conditional release.
Court Observations and Directions
The court observed that although the seized contraband constituted a commercial and colossal quantity of 355.570 kgs of ganja, the petitioner had been in custody for 193 days while the charge sheet was yet to be submitted.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A remand extension petition was filed on the 172nd day from the date of initial remand, but no orders were passed thereon. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has been in judicial custody beyond the default period of 180 days, and the Charge Sheet has not yet been filed, as submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor."
The Court has the following directions:
"i. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 shall be enlarged on bail subject to him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 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.8 shall not leave the limits of the Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.
iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 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.8 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.8 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer."
Ratio
Where the investigation agency fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed default period of 180 days, and no judicial order extending remand has been passed on a pending extension application, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to bail despite the heavy quantity of contraband involved.
Background
The case arose out of Crime No.156 of 2025 registered at Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District. The petitioner was implicated as Accused No. 8 based on the confession statement of a co-accused in relation to the seizure of 355.570 kgs of ganja. The petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2026.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent, falsely implicated, and was the sole earning member of his family. On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, citing the pending investigation and the risk of the accused absconding. However, it was conceded that the charge sheet had not been filed even after 193 days of custody. The High Court, noting that the petitioner is a permanent resident with a fixed abode and taking into account the duration of judicial custody, allowed the criminal petition on stringent conditions.
Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7374/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:35473
Case Title: Chelluri Nagesh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Singuru Sai Krishna
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (represented by Mr. A. Sai Rohith, Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 14166
Similar Articles
Breaking News
