Dismissed¶¶34

Sukri Arjun v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bail refusal – NDPS – commercial quantity

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026CRLP/1521/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC Amaravati Crl.P. No. 1521 of 2026 (decided 03.03.2026, Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa): Sukri Arjun (A-7) v. State of A.P. — regular bail under Ss.480/483 BNSS in Crime No.29/2023, Annavaram P.S. (NDPS S.20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c)); seizure of 1,401.600 Kgs ganja (huge commercial quantity) on 26.09.2023; custody since 01.08.2025 (~180 days); parity with A3 (Crl.P.No.3629 of 2024, 12.07.2024) denied for want of comparable clean-antecedent position; Criminal Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — regular bail refused to petitioner/Accused No.7; Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed. ¶¶34

Sukri Arjun Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — regular bail refused to petitioner/Accused No.7; Criminal Petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/Accused No.7 (Sukri Arjun) is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 29 of 2023 of Annavaram Police Station (NDPS case involving seizure of 1,401.600 Kgs of ganja), on such terms and conditions as deemed fit. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the bail request of the petitioner/A7 cannot be considered at this juncture: there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence, or that, if released on bail, he would not commit a similar offence in future; hence the Criminal Petition seeking grant of bail has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot claim parity with accused No.3 (bail granted in Crl.P.No.3629 of 2024 on 12.07.2024), because there were no criminal adverse antecedents against accused No.3, unlike the petitioner.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refusal — NDPS — commercial quantity — Regular-bail petition under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C.) by Accused No.7 in Crime No.29/2023, Annavaram P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District, arising from seizure (26.09.2023) of 34 gunny bags containing 1,401.600 Kgs of ganja, offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c) NDPS Act. Petitioner in judicial custody since 01.08.2025 (past 180 days as on hearing); State pointed to confession statements of other accused, call records and WhatsApp messages, alleged involvement in four other NDPS cases, and an allowed custodial-interrogation petition. Plea of parity with Accused No.3 (bail in Crl.P.No.3629 of 2024, 12.07.2024) rejected — that bail rested on absence of criminal adverse antecedents against A3. Investigation-extension petition allowed on 13.02.2026 by the Special Court. Finding no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner innocent of the alleged dealing or that release would not lead to similar offences, the Court dismissed the Criminal Petition. (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 03.03.2026)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010098942026

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1521/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

SUKRI ARJUN, S/O RAMBABU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O MAMIDIPALLI VILLAGE,CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DHIKARASAHI VILLAGE,KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,ANNAVARAM POLICE STATION,ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶13

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/A-7 on bail in connection with FIR No. 29 of 2023 of Annavaram Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1521 OF 2026

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.7, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.29/2023 of Annavaram Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short <NDPS Act=).

¶23

The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 26.09.2023, the SubInspector of Police along with his staff and mediators while conducting vehicle checking near Nimmapadu road turning point of Chinthapalli Mandal, found two persons in a possession of 34 gunny bags containing 1,401.600 Kgs of ganja. The contraband along with other material was seized under the cover of mediators report.

¶24

Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

¶25

No.7 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Perused the record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is A7. The petitioner was produced before the Court on execution of PT Warrant and he has been in judicial custody since 01.08.2025 in this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing has

¶27

¶28

been seized from the possession of the petitioner. He would further submits that the accused No.3 in this crime was already granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.3629 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court for grant of regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioner by imposing any conditions.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that this is a serious case of seizure of a huge commercial quantity of ganja i.e., 1,401.600 Kgs. Apart from confession statements of the other accused, call records and whatsapp messages have also been collected during the course of the investigation against the petitioner. In addition to that, the petitioner is involved in four other NDPS cases. She would further submit that the petition seeking for custodial interrogation, filed by the police before the learned Court below was allowed and urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶30

As seen from the record, the petitioner/A7 has been in judicial custody since 01.08.2025 for the past 180 days. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had indulged in dealing with 1,401.600 kgs of ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. A petition seeking extension of time for investigation was filed by the police before the learned Special Court, and the same was allowed on 13.02.2026. The petitioner cannot seek parity with accused No.3 whose application was considered by this Court in Crl.P.No.3629 of 2024 on

¶31

¶32

12.07.2024 on the ground that there were no criminal adverse antecedents against accused No.3.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioner/A7 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 that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he would not commit a similar offence in future. Therefore, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition seeking grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34