Criminal Antecedents No Bar To Bail For Non-Commercial Quantity Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that the mere existence of criminal antecedents cannot serve as a solitary ground to deny bail, especially when the seized contraband involves a non-commercial quantity. In a significant decision protecting personal liberty, the Court granted bail to a 66-year-old accused, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence remains intact despite pending cases under the narcotics law.

In a petition filed under Section 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao considered the bail plea of an individual accused of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner, who had been in judicial custody for 90 days, sought relief on the grounds of his age and his role as the sole breadwinner for his family.

Court Observations on Criminal History

While the prosecution highlighted five adverse antecedents, four of which were under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court relied on the precedent set in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2020) 11 SCC 648": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 573) to hold that pendency of cases is not a per se ground for denial of bail.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. 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 mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail."

Rationale for Granting Relief

Considering the fact that the investigation was in an advanced stage with material witnesses already examined, the Court found no immediate threat of evidence tampering. The Court has following directions:

"i. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, 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 the commission of any offence while on bail.

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 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.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.

vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.4 shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer. If he claims that he does not have passport, he shall submit affidavits to that effect to the Investigating Officer."

Background

The petitioner was arrested on June 23, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2025 at Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He was allegedly involved in the possession of 2.500 Kgs of ganja. The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail, citing the ongoing investigation and the petitioner's history of involvement in similar narcotics cases, suggesting a high risk of him absconding. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the implication was false and that his continued incarceration would devastate his dependents.

The Court noted that no application for custodial interrogation had been filed and that the petitioner had already spent 90 days in custody, exceeding the 60-day statutory period for filing a charge sheet in such cases. The court eventually allowed the petition, balancing the requirements of the investigation with the individual's right to liberty.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8130/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:39172
Case Title: Pottangi Venkata Rao Alias Babu Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU
For the Respondent(s): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 15685