Dismissed¶47

Uyyuru Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradeshq

Bail – NDPS Act

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2026CRLP/4599/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; Criminal Petition 4599/2026; bail rejected; Sections 480/483 BNSS; NDPS Act Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29, 37; MDMA 19.7 grams collective commercial quantity; ganja; common intention; Machavaram Police Station Crime No.71/2026; NTR Commissionerate; investigation nascent stage; Accused No.5 absconding; non-disclosure of antecedents; Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.; Union of India v. Ram Samujh; Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa); State of Kerala v. Rajesh; 180-day statutory remand not completed; judicial custody 117 days.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture as the investigation is still at a crucial stage; there are no merits for grant of bail. ¶45

Uyyuru Kaushik Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradeshq — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.71 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Bail refused: the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture as the investigation is still at a crucial stage; there are no merits for grant of bail.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Section 29 of the NDPS Act is squarely applicable, there being prima facie evidence of common intention among the accused in relation to possession and transportation of MDMA.

¶32

Key takeaways

Collective possession of 19.7 grams of MDMA by four accused falls within the commercial category since 10 grams of MDMA constitutes commercial quantity under the NDPS Act (Petitioner individually found with 6.20 grams).ratio¶28
Non-disclosure in the bail application of detailed particulars of the Petitioner's criminal antecedents (FIR numbers, involvement of other accused), contrary to the disclosure obligation recognised in Zeba Khan, weighs against grant of bail.ratio¶28
The statutory period of judicial remand of 180 days is not completed (Petitioner in custody 117 days since arrest on 07.03.2026), a consideration bearing on the bail request.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — NDPS Act — Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS by Accused No.1 seeking bail in Crime No.71/2026 of Machavaram Police Station (Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), NDPS Act) — DISMISSED. Four accused collectively found with 19.7 grams MDMA, exceeding the 10-gram commercial quantity threshold; Section 29 NDPS held prima facie applicable on evidence of common intention in possession and transportation. Investigation at a nascent stage with only six witnesses examined, material witnesses remaining, and Accused No.5 absconding. Petitioner (aged 25, arrested 07.03.2026, 117 days in judicial custody; statutory 180-day remand period incomplete) had one similar NDPS antecedent and one IPC antecedent whose particulars (FIR numbers, co-accused involvement) were not disclosed, contrary to the disclosure duty under Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. Reliance placed on Union of India v. Ram Samujh, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) and State of Kerala v. Rajesh on the gravity of narcotic offences and strict compliance with Section 37 NDPS conditions.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026 Date of uploading : 07.07.2026

¶3

APHC010286042026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2^nd DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4599/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

UYYURU KAUSHIK REDDY, , S/O SRINIVASA REDDY,AGE 25 YEARS. CASTE REDDY, R/O 3RD FLOOR,SAI NAGAR, PORANKI, KRISHNA DISTRICT,MOBILE NO 9381600560

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHQ, , Rep by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu.,Through the SHO, Machavaram P.S, NTR Commissionerate.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.BOPPUDI ALEKHYA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶21

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.1 on bail in Crime No.71 of 2026 of

¶22

¶23

Machavaram Police Station, NTR Commissionerate for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶24

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

¶25

Mr. Boppudi Alekhya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. He further submits that the Petitioner was allegedly found in possession of only 19.7 grams of MDMA and that there was no sharing of common intention. Therefore, Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is not applicable. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Krishna District and undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. It is further submitted that the investigation is almost completed, and urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶26

Per contra , Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. He further submits that Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ squarely applies to the present case, inasmuch as the accused shared a common intention in the possession and transportation of commercial quantities of ganja and MDMA. It is also submitted that Accused No.5 is still at large, and therefore, urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶27

¶28

On perusal of the record, the Petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 6.20 grams of MDMA. The prosecution alleges that four accused were collectively found in possession of 19.7 grams of MDMA. Since 10 grams of MDMA constitutes commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the collective possession falls within the commercial category. Accused No. 5 is still absconding. So far, only six witnesses have been examined, and the investigation remains at a nascent stage with several material witnesses yet to be examined. A substantial portion of the investigation is still pending. The Petitioner is aged about 25 years and has one similar criminal antecedent under ‘the NDPS Act’ and another under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In his application, however, he has not furnished detailed particulars of these antecedents, including FIR numbers and the involvement of other accused.

¶29

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.,¹ , 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 refusal 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.

¶30

1 2026 SCC Online 188

¶31

¶32

On a careful perusal of the record, Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely applicable to the present case, as there is prima facie evidence of common intention among the accused in relation to possession and transportation of MDMA. The Petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody for the past 117 days.

¶33

Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is also not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶34

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 observed that narcotic offences have a grave and farreaching impact on society, destroying numerous lives. The Court further held that drug traffickers pose a continuing threat to society and, therefore, the statutory restrictions must be strictly enforced.

¶35

In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)³ , the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24, observed that illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs has become a serious social menace, particularly affecting the youth. The Court further noted that, in view of its devastating impact on society, Parliament enacted stringent provisions under ‘the NDPS Act’ to effectively combat the menace.

¶36

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh⁴ , at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21, held that bail under ‘the NDPS Act’ can be granted only upon strict compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 37. The Court further observed that ‘reasonable grounds’ require

¶37

2 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶38

3 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶39

4 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶40

¶41

substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such

¶42

a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail.

¶43

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view

¶44

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan , Ram Samujh,

¶45

Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as the investigation is still at crucial stage. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶46

Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶47