Puppala Sai Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PUPPALA SAI KUMAR, S/O V.V. SATYANARAYANA LATE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARSKAPU, R/O BILLAKURRU VILLAGE, KOTHAPETA MANDAL,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer,Amalapuram Town Police Station, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District.Represented by Public Prosecutor,High court of A.P AtAmaravathiRespondent

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

DUGGIRALA SUBASH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

2

¶20

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5487 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

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 on bail in connection with Crime No.101 of 2026 of Amalapuram Town Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶24

Mr. Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got a fixed abode. It is further submitted that the total contraband was weighed along with two trolley bags. If the contraband had been removed from the trolley bags and the contraband alone had been weighed, the seized contraband would have been of lesser weight.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in the very same police station, three cyber crime cases were registered against the petitioner by the Station House Officer concerned, and in order to pin

¶26

3

¶27

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5487 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026

¶28

down the petitioner, the police have foisted the present case against him. It is further submitted that the seized contraband consists of leaves, stems, and flowers, and that the exact ganja was not separated from the remaining material before weighing. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be allowed.

¶29

Per contra , Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. It is further submitted that the inventory proceedings have not yet been completed to ascertain the exact quantity of the contraband. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 68 days. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, being the sole accused, was found in conscious possession and transportation of 23.230 kgs of ganja. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the inventory proceedings have

¶32

4

¶33

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5487 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026

¶34

not yet been completed. Unless the inventory proceedings are completed,

¶35

this Court will not be in a position to ascertain the exact quantity of ganja found in the possession of the petitioner based on the mediators' report. So far, only four witnesses have been examined. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶36

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.

¶37

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ , 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.

¶38

In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² , 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.

¶39

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶40

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶41

5

¶42

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.5487 of 2026 Dated 17.07.2026

¶43

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³ , 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 substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail.

¶44

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the petitioner 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. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶45