Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sayyad Jamseed vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 July, 2026
1
Date of reserved for orders : NIL
Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026
Date of uploading : .07.2026
APHC010327452026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5245 of 2026
Between:
1. SAYYAD JAMSEED, S/O SAYYAD MOHAMMED, AGED 30
YEARS,R/O THAIIGAL FLOUSE, UPPALA, KASARGOD
DISTRICT,STATE OF KERALA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
...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/Accused
No. 2 on bail in Crime Na. 7 of 2026, On the file of the Denkada Police
Station and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2The Court made the following Order:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to
enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.7 of 2026 of Denkada
Police Station, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act‘).
2. Sri D. Ramakoteshwar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been
falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the
sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would
cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly
adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the
foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be
allowed in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Mr.K. Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the
investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be
examined. It is contended that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage,
there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the
ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing
submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
3
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
5. As seen from the record, the petitioner is aged 30 years. The Petitioner
is a resident of Kerala State and arrayed as Accused No.2. The allegation
against him is that he was transported the ganja illegally. The petitioner was
arrested on 07.01.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 182 days.
No application was filed seeking extension of judicial remand of the Petitioner
before the learned Trial Court. There are no similar adverse antecedents
reported against the petitioner. So far, eight witnesses have been examined. A
substantial portion of the investigation with regard to the role played by the
petitioner has already been completed. There is no threat for the witnesses for
the prosecution from the side of the Petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent
resident of Thangal House, Uppala, Kasargod District, Kerala State and he
has got fixed abode. As the Accused Nos. 3 and 4 absconding, no charge
sheet was filed.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are no
adverse antecedents against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and no report was
filed before the learned Court below by the learned Public Prosecutor
concerned seeking for extension period of judicial custody of the petitioner
upto one year by indicating the progress of investigation and the specific
reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period.
7. Section 36A(4) of ‘the NDPS Act‘ states that if the investigation is not
completed within 180 days, the petitioner/Accused No.2 has an indefeasible
4
right to bail, unless the Special Court extends the period up to one year on the
report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and
specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the initial period.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and
gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.2, this
Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail subject to
some stringent conditions.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent
conditions:
i. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail subject
to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the
satisfaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum –
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.
ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 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.2 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.2 shall not commit or indulge in
commission of any offence in future.
5
v. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 shall co-operate 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.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.
vii. The petitioner/Accused No.2 shall surrender his passport, if
any, to the investigating officer. If he claims that he does not
have passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the
Investigating Officer.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 07.07.2026KK
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
