Dismissed¶¶28

B Santosh Reddy alias Santosh Reddi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Anticipatory bail – NDPS offence

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Jan 2026CRLP/12808/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Crl.P. No. 12808 of 2025; decided 27.01.2026 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS refused; NDPS Act Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C); Crime No. 202 of 2024, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District; 810 kgs ganja; petitioner A8 not in physical possession of contraband but represented as prime accused and source of supply; call detail records/conversations linking accused; charge sheet filed; earlier bail application dismissed; petition dismissed with direction against refiling.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail, not being inclined to consider it in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. ¶¶26

B Santosh Reddy alias Santosh Reddi Vs The State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the petitioner (A8) in Crime No. 202 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Court declined the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail, not being inclined to consider it in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Grounds taken into account in refusing bail: although the 810 kgs of ganja was not seized from the petitioner's physical possession, the Assistant Public Prosecutor represented that the petitioner is the prime accused and the source of the contraband, and the Investigating Officer had collected material showing conversations between the petitioner and the other accused at the relevant point of time.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioner was directed not to file this type of application again before this Court.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - NDPS offence - refused. Criminal Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. by the petitioner (arrayed as A8) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 202 of 2024 of Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, concerning 810 kgs of ganja seized from A1 to A3. Though no contraband was recovered from the petitioner's physical possession, his counsel stating that the charge sheet has been filed and that he has no previous criminal record, the Court, taking into account the prosecution's representation that the petitioner is the prime accused and the source of supply of the ganja into Andhra Pradesh through A1 to A3, and that the Investigating Officer collected material showing conversations between the petitioner and the other accused at the relevant time, and there being no change in circumstances since dismissal of his earlier bail application, declined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was further directed not to file a similar application again before the Court. Criminal Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010669102025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3396]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12808/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

B SANTOSH REDDY ALIAS SANTOSH REDDI, S/O. B. MURALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,OCC FIREMAN, ODISHA FIRE EMERGENCY SERVICES,R/O ASHOK NAGAR, NEAR B.E.D. COLLEGE,KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravati

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.TANUJA DUNGI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶15

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., is filed by the Petitioner herein/A8 seeking to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.202 of 2024 of Ramabhadrapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The contraband seized in the

¶21

¶22

present crime, namely 810 kgs of ganja, was recovered from the possession of A1 to A3. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no material on record to link the petitioner with A1 to A3 and that, moreover, the petitioner has no previous criminal record. Learned counsel would also submit that the charge sheet has been filed in the matter. Learned counsel finally prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the petition by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner

¶23

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that special teams were sent to Odisha for the apprehension of the petitioner, who is the prime accused and the source of supplying ganja to Andhra Pradesh through A1 to A3. It is further submitted that the call detail records at the relevant point of time connect the accused with the present crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally submits that there is no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

¶24

Considering the submissions made and upon a perusal of the material on record, it goes to show that, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, though the contraband of 810 kgs of ganja was not seized from the physical possession of the petitioner, it is represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the prime accused and the source of the contraband. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected material to show that there were conversations between the petitioner and the other accused at the relevant point of time.

¶25

¶26

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to consider the request of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶27