Prolonged Custody and Lack of Drug-Related Antecedents Merit Bail in NDPS Case: Andhra Pradesh HC

Granting relief to an accused incarcerated for over 250 days, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has underscored that a history of unrelated criminal offenses does not automatically bar the grant of bail in narcotics cases where commercial quantity thresholds are contested. The ruling reinforces the judicial inclination toward liberty when the investigation is complete and the accused has no prior record of similar drug-related crimes.

In a second bail application seeking the enlargement of the petitioner in a case involving the seizure of 21.7 kilograms of ganja, the Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao considered the balance between the gravity of the allegations and the period of incarceration.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court noted that while the petitioner had eight adverse antecedents, all of them were registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, rather than the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Furthermore, the Court observed that the charge sheet had already been filed within the statutory period of 180 days.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.2, and the period of his incarceration, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail, subject to stringent conditions."

The Court has the following directions:

"i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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 Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act-Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravarm.

ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.

iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.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."

Background

The petitioner, identified as Accused No. 2, was arrested on November 6, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 354 of 2025 at Gandepalli Police Station. The allegations involved the possession of six bags of ganja weighing approximately 21.7 kilograms. The petitioner sought bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and was the sole breadwinner of his family. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail, citing the well-founded nature of the accusations despite the filing of the charge sheet. A previous bail application (Crl.P.No.2912 of 2026) had been dismissed in April 2026. However, citing the 254-day incarceration period and the fact that co-accused (Accused No. 3) had already been granted bail, the Court allowed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7551/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:36993
Case Title: Punnana Teja Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 15660