Kamashi Satheesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.24 of 2026 of G Madugula Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶29

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.05.2026, acting on credible information, the police conducted a vehicle checking operation at G.M. Kotturu Junction, G. Madugula Mandal, in the presence of mediators. During the checking, they intercepted a motorcycle bearing No. AP 40 AN 7343 carrying three persons, who attempted to flee on noticing the police but were apprehended after a brief chase. Upon inspection, a white plastic gunny bag allegedly carried by one of the accused was found to contain Ganja. The accused allegedly confessed that they were transporting the contraband, and the Ganja, motorcycle, and mobile phones were seized under the cover of a mediators' report.

¶30

Mr.D. Ramakoteshwar Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and has not committed the alleged offences under ‘the NDPS Act’. It is contended that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the Petitioner and that the allegations in the remand report are vague and unsupported by any specific material. The learned counsel further submits that the mandatory procedure under Section 52-A of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ has not been followed and that the provisions of Section 67 of ‘the NDPS

¶31

3

¶32

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4819 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶33

Act.,’ have also been violated. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a

¶34

law-abiding citizen, will cooperate with the trial, will not abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, and is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the Petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶35

Per contra , Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has not yet been completed and that some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further submitted that three cases are pending against the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

As seen from the record, the Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.1. He was arrested on 12.05.2026 while he was in possession and transportation of 14 Kgs of ganja. Of course, it is not a commercial quantity. The Petitioner

¶38

has been in the judicial custody for the past 35 days only. There are three similar adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. So far, three witnesses are examined. Not even the material portion of the investigation is completed. Some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶39

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

¶40

1 2026 SCC Online 188

¶41

4

¶42

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4819 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶43

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.

¶44

The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated 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.

¶45

In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the pendency of the previous antecedents against him, though the same are reflected in the remand report.

¶46

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan supra , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

5

¶48

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4819 of 2026 Dated 02.07.2026

¶49