NADIGATLA MANOHAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4463 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 The 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.28 of 2026 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 106 of ‘the BNSS’ and Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Sri A.V. Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that originally the FIR was registered against some unknown offenders in Crime No.28 of 2026 of Pithapuram Rural Police Station. The vehicle in which the alleged transportation was carried out is not in the name of the petitioner. The alleged confession of the petitioner is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The police have registered two FIRs in one crime. The car is registered in the name of L.W.10. There is no material to incriminate the petitioner. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen and he has got fixed abode. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4463 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026

3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is not completed and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. She further submits that originally the FIR was registered against some unknown offenders. Later, after the names of the offenders became known to the Investigating Officer, the FIR was altered by mentioning the names of the accused through the CCTNS Portal. Therefore, it is wrongly reflected as if two FIRs were registered in one crime, whereas in fact only one FIR was registered. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

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 arraigned as Accused No.2 in this case. No doubt, the car is not registered in the name of the petitioner. However, it is alleged that the car was purchased by the petitioner. As per the evidence of L.W.9, who is an eyewitness, the case was traced and the car in which the alleged contraband was transported stood in the name of L.W.10 alone. He has given a clear statement in that regard. The petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 82 days. He is alleged to have indulged in the transportation of 92.00 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4463 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026 It is mentioned in the remand report that the petitioner had purchased the car bearing Registration No.AP31CA0649. Since the petitioner could not receive certain Government benefits if the vehicle stood in his name, he requested one of his relatives, namely Padi Satish, to get the vehicle registered in his name. However, it is alleged that the petitioner himself was using the said car in which the commercial quantity of ganja was transported. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. Even a substantial portion of the investigation has not been completed. The petitioner is also reported to have two other similar adverse antecedents. L.W.9, who is an eyewitness, has categorically stated that four bags of ganja were being transported in a blue-coloured car, which was earlier purchased by the petitioner and was kept in a palm oil tope on the intervening night of 04/05.03.2026.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 92.00 Kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture.

7. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4463 of 2026 Dated 18.06.2026

8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: failed justify ignoring

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 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 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