Sinderi Lakshmayya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 4 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.52/2025 of Chintapalli P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District and to pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶19

1.BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶21

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

AND

¶24

APHC010324852026

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5216/2026

¶31

Between:

¶32

BONANGI DHANABABU, S/O. DALANGI LAKSHMI PADAL KRISHNA PADAL,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. LAMADAMPALLI VILLAGE,CHINTAPALLI MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P.

¶33

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶34

AND

¶35

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.

¶36

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶37

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 Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.52/2025 of Chintapalli P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District and to pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶39

1.BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶41

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶42

COMMON ORDER:

¶43

The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused by names Sinderi Lakshmayya, Ventala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu on bail in Crime No.52 of 2025 of Chintapalli Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶44

Mr. Balabadruni Manohar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. The Petitioner has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra, Mr.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners. He submitted that although the Charge Sheet has been filed, the allegations against the Petitioners are grave in nature. If the Petitioners are released on bail, there is a strong likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses and interfering with the course of the trial. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public

¶47

Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶48

On perusal of the record, the petitioners/Accused are alleged to have been involved in dealing with 3.17 kilograms of Hashish oil (liquid ganja). As per the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1 kilogram of Hashish oil constitutes a commercial quantity. Upon completion of a thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed well within the statutory period of 180 days and has been taken on file as NSL No.240 of 2026.

¶49

The petitioners/accused i.e., Sinderi Laskhmayya and Vantala Krishna were arrested on 20.11.2025 and have been in judicial custody for the past 430 days. The allegation against petitioner/ Sinderi Lakshmayya is that he is the seller of 3.17 kilograms of Hashish oil.

¶50

Petitioner/ Bonangi Dhanababu is alleged to be the manufacturer of the Hashish oil. Bonangi Dhanababu voluntarily surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 24.12.2025 and was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. He has been in judicial custody for the past 198 days.

¶51

There is one similar antecedent against petitioner/ Sinderi Lakshmayya, whereas there are no similar antecedents against petitioners/Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu.

¶52

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused i.e., Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu, this Court is inclined to enlarge the them on bail with some stringent conditions.

¶53

In the result, the Criminal Petitions are partly allowed with the following stringent conditions:

¶54

i. The Petitioners/Accused i.e., Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam.

¶55

ii. The Petitioner/Accused i.e., Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every adjournment without fail.

¶56

iii. The Petitioner/Accused Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the learned Trial Court concerned.

¶57

iv. The Petitioner/Accused Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence in future.

¶58

v. The Petitioner/Accused Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶59

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from

¶60

disclosing such facts to the Court.

¶61

vi. The Petitioner/Accused Vantala Krishna and Bonangi Dhanababu 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.

¶62

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to petitioner/Sinderi Lakshmayya, his involvement in a similar offence, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the view that the accusations against petitioner/ Sinderi Lakshmayya are prima facie wellfounded. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to petitioner/ Sinderi Lakshmayya at this stage, and the bail petition insofar as petitioner/ Sinderi Lakshmayya is concerned is dismissed.

¶63

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶64

Date: 07.07.2026 JLSR

¶65

Whether the order is :

¶66

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶67

95

¶68

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO