Criminal Antecedents No Bar To Bail For Intermediate Quantity Of Ganja: Andhra Pradesh HC

Criminal history alone cannot serve as a structural barrier to personal liberty when considering bail for intermediate drug possession. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reinforced the principle that judicial custody for an extended period, combined with parity among co-accused, outweighs the weight of past adverse antecedents in narcotics cases.

In a decisive step toward protecting the personal liberty of the accused, a bench of the Honourable Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao adjudicated upon the bail plea of an individual detained for 45 days in connection with the possession of an intermediate quantity of contraband. The Court weighed the prosecution's fears of the petitioner absconding against the established legal precedent that past criminal records should not be the solitary reason for incarceration.

Judicial Scrutiny of NDPS Bail Criteria

The Petitioner was booked for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after being found in possession of 6 Kgs of Ganja. While the prosecution vehemently opposed the plea citing the ongoing investigation and one similar adverse antecedent from 2022, the Court noted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam with a fixed abode.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2020) 11 SCC 648": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 573) at para No.7, observed that criminal antecedents or similar adverse antecedents cannot be the sole basis for refusal of bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.4 on bail with stringent conditions."

The Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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.4 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.4 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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 Petitioner/Accused No.4 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."

Background

The case arose from Crime No. 283 of 2026 registered at Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner, Accused No. 4, was arrested on July 25, 2026, for allegedly possessing 6 Kgs of Ganja. The Petitioner's counsel argued for his innocence and highlighted his role as the sole breadwinner, while the Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner might abscond given his past record in Crime No. 408 of 2022. The Court noted that the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 had already been enlarged on bail via an order dated August 17, 2026. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7488/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:36511
Case Title: APPIKONDA YADAV KISHORE Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): RAMINENI SUDHEER
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 15650