Pandi Naga Yugendhar Babu @ Yogi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS, praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner's/Accused No.3 & 4 bail in Crime No.3 of 2026, on the file of Gurthedu Police Station. , on The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the the arguments of support thereof and upon hearing grounds filed Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for Respondent, 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 Nos.3 and 4 on bail in Crime No.3 of 2026 of Gurthedu Police Station, registered against the Petitioner/Accus ed Nos.3 and 4 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read \A/ith 20(b)(ii)(C), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPSAct’).

2. Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. The petitioners undertake 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. A. Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they 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.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. As seen from the record, the petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners allegedly have indulged in dealing with 23 kgs. of Ganja. The seized Ganja is of commercial quantity; however, it is not a colossal quantity. The petitioners were arrested on 09.02.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 182 days. Accused No. 3 has one similar adverse antecedent and two cases registered under the IPC, while Accused No. 4 has two cases registered under the IPC. So far, 6 witnesses have been examined. Accused No. 1 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Crl.P.No.5035 of 2026, dated 03.07.2026. Therefore, the possibility of the petitioners threatening the official witnesses, tampering with the evidence, or hampering the investigation may not arise. The petitioners are permanent residents of Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, and they have a fixed abode.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that an application was filed on 27.07.2026 seeking extention of the remand of the petitioner beyond 180 days. But the case has been adjourned from time to time because of the leave of the presiding officer concerned.

7. No doubt, the petitioners have not mentioned in their petition about their earlier antecedents.

8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,\ wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refu sal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars. including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.

9. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh lays down that in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.

10. Be that as it may, the petitioners have been in judicial custody beyond the statutory period. (CQiisidering the facts and circumstances of the case, the ^ 2026 see Online 188 nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 4, and the period of their incarceration in judicial custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 4 on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions: i. The Petitioner/ Accused Nos.3 and 4 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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram. ii. The Petitioner/ Accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall appear before the I 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 Nos. 3 and 4 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned. iv. The Petitioner/ Accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall not commit indulge in commission of any offence in future. V. The Petitioner/ Accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall cooperate 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 Nos. 3 and 4 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 Nos. 3 and 4 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. //TRUE COPY// SDI- R.SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.

3. The Station House Officer, Gurthedu Police Station, Polavaram [^strict. Dne CC to Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] ^

5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati. [OUT]

6. One spare copy. PSD HIGH COURT DR.YLR.J DATE: 11/08/2026 BAIL ORDER CRLP NO. 6140 OF 2026 ALLOWED I