Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ballav Krishnakant Alias Bengal … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 2026
APHC010223402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3408/2026
Between:
1. BALLAV KRISHNAKANT ALIAS BENGAL KRISHNA, S/O.
RATIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,R/O. DUPPALAVADA
VILLAGE, AND SEELERU PANCHAYAT, GUDEM KOTHA
VEEDHI,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY STAYING AT
LALACHERUVU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
2. MOTURI VENKATALAKSHMI HARI KUMAR, S/O. SANDHI LATE
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,R/O. ST COLONY, RAMPACHODAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM NORTH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to release the petitioner/A1 and A2
on Bail in connection with Crime No. 246 of 2025 in of Proh. Excise Station,
Rajamahendravaram, U/s 8 r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act, 1985, dated 30-10-
2025 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
2
1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3408/2026
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused
Nos.1 and 2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 246 of 2025 in of Prohibition
Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 30.10.2025, at about
06.30 PM, at vacant place behind Garuda Hotel, which is situated on the left
side of the service road adjacent to NH16, Katheru Village the Prohibition and
Excise Inspector, Rajamahendravaram North along with his staff and
mediators while conducting vehicle checking, apprehended A1 to A6 when
they were transporting 33 kgs of Ganja on two motorcycles and he seized the
said ganja, motorcycles, mobile phones and case from their possession under
the cover of mediators’ report.
3. Heard Mr.Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are
innocent and that they haves not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners were
4
falsely implicated in this case. The investigation might have been completed
by this time. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 30.10.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready
to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail
to the petitioners.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition
and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a
commercial quantity of 33 kilograms of Ganja, the investigation is still pending
and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 30.10.2025. She
would further submit that the prosecution has filed a petition seeking extension
of judicial remand before the Special Court and the same is pending. Learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed
before this Court, it is a case involving 33 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial
quantity. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor that a petition for extension of remand has been filed and the
same is pending before the Court and that the investigation is still pending,
this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners at this stage.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph
Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under:
8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has
mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted
bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty
and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to
justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the
1
(2020) 12 SCC 122
5
accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and
health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to
have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament.
19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the
grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non
obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions
are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the
accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar
against granting bail applies.
20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima
facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing
the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and
circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present
case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and
its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted.
21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding
required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non
for granting bail in such cases.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as
there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not
indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are
released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no
merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the
Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________
DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 28.04.2026.
UPS
6
79
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3408/2026
Dt.28.04.2026
UPS
