Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kola Vinodh Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 2026
APHC010219992026
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: 3353/2026
Between:
1. KOLA VINODH KUMAR, S/O. NIRANJAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, R/O. D. NO.6-125-6, KOTHAPETA, DHONETOWN,NANDYAL
DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING ATFLAT NO.A-112, HAPPY
HOME, OLD ITIJUNCTION, KANCHARAPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. AT
AMARAVATHI
...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 may be pleased to enlarge the
Petitioner/Accused No.5 on bail pending disposal of Crime No. 298/2025 of
Kancharapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam District
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3353/2026
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused
No.5, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 298 of 2025 of Kancharapalem P.S.,
Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.08.2025, the petitioner
supplied 21.3 Kgs of Ganja to the other accused. On that day, A1 was caught
redhanded while he was in possession of the said ganja.
3. Heard Mr.Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an
innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was
falsely implicated in this case. No contraband was seized from the possession
of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.5, basing on the
confession statement of the co-accused only. The petitioner has been in
judicial custody since 01.03.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
3
submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the
Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition
and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a
commercial quantity of 21.3 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner has
been in judicial custody since 01.03.2026. She would further submit that the
investigation is still pending and the statutory period is also not completed.
She would further submit that there are two other cases pending against the
petitioner/Accused No.5 under the provisions of the NDPS Act. 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 21.3 Kgs of Ganja, which is a
commercial quantity. In the light of the criminal antecedents pending against
the petitioner/accused No.5 and as the investigation is still pending, this Court
is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/Accused No.5 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
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
1
(2020) 12 SCC 122
4
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 petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as
there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged
in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioner is released on
bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the
Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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
5
29
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3353/2026
Dt.28.04.2026
UPS