Dismissed¶48

Bantupalli Srinu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

NDPS Act – Bail

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2026CRLP/5507/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail dismissed; ganja 37 kgs commercial quantity; Sections 480 & 483 BNSS; Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with 8(c) NDPS Act; 180-day statutory remand not completed; charge sheet within 180 days; Union of India v. Ram Samujh; Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa); State of Kerala v. Rajesh; medical care direction Central Prison Visakhapatnam; Sileru Police Station Crime No.01/2026; APHC010342162026; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused and the Criminal Petition dismissed; the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to treat the Petitioner's Umbilical Hernia and provide the requisite medical care and certification. ¶48

Bantupalli Srinu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner/Accused No.3 deserves to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.01 of 2026 of Sileru Police Station for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with 8(c) NDPS Act (37 kgs of ganja, commercial quantity), on a petition under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Bail refused: in view of the charge sheet having been filed within the statutory period of 180 days and the well-founded nature of the accusation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage; there are no merits for grant of bail.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The statutory period of judicial remand of 180 days had not been completed, a factor weighing against the Petitioner's request for bail.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to take necessary steps for treating the Petitioner's Umbilical Hernia and to provide the requisite medical care and certification.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act - Bail - Petition under Sections 480 & 483 BNSS by Accused No.3 in Crime No.01 of 2026 of Sileru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with 8(c) NDPS Act involving 37 kgs of ganja (commercial quantity); Petitioner arrested 26.01.2026 and in judicial custody about 169 days; charge sheet filed within the statutory period of 180 days; medical plea of Chronic Hypertension and Large Umbilical Hernia supported by certificate dated 27.05.2026. Held: accusation well-founded and statutory remand period not completed; relying on Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95 and State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122, bail declined at this stage; Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam directed to treat the Umbilical Hernia and provide requisite medical care and certification. Criminal Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : --

¶3

Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶4

APHC010342162026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 14^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5507/2026

¶11

Between:

¶12

BANTUPALLI SRINU, S/O. LATE CHINNABBAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,R/O. SRUNGAVARAM VILLAGE, ROWTHULAPUDI MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶18

1.KOLLI USHA KIRANMAYEE

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶20

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶22

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.01 of 2026 of Sileru Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the

¶23

¶24

Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶25

Mrs.Kolli Usha Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶26

Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submits 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. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed within 180 days, as the accusation is wellfounded and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶27

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

¶28

After thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed within the statutory period of 180 days. The allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he indulged in dealing with 37 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial

¶29

quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2026. He has been in judicial

¶30

¶31

custody for the past 169 days. On perusal of the record, the accusation appears well ‑ founded against the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been suffering from Chronic Hypertension and Large Umbilical Hernia. To that effect, the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, has issued a medical certificate dated 27.05.2026.

¶32

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.

¶33

In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court at

¶34

Paragraph No.7 held as under :

¶35

“In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.”

¶36

In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)² the Hon’ble Apex Court at

¶37

Paragraph No.24 held as under:

¶38

“The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.”

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh³ at Paragraph

¶40

No.8 held as under:

¶41

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶42

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶43

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶44

¶45

8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament.

¶46

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 the accusation is well ‑ founded. In view of the filing of the charge sheet within the statutory period of 180 days and the well ‑ founded nature of the accusation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail to the Petitioner, and hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, is directed to take necessary steps for treating the Umbilical Hernia of the Petitioner and to provide the requisite medical care and certification.

¶48