Dismissed¶¶43

Lanka Sri Kalyan Ram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jul 2026CRLP/5702/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail dismissal; Sections 480, 483 BNSS; Section 37 NDPS mandatory conditions; 24 kg ganja commercial quantity; Kirlampudi Police Station Crime No.210 of 2025; S.C. No.79 of 2026; East Godavari; Accused No.6 Lanka Sri Kalyan Ram; reliance on Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95, State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122; investigation at crucial stage; charge sheet within 180 days; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; dated 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, having regard to the allegations which are prima facie supported by the averments in the charge sheet. ¶¶30

Lanka Sri Kalyan Ram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether Accused No.6, arrested in Crime No.210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, should be enlarged on bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the prosecution's objection that the investigation is incomplete and a commercial quantity of ganja was involved.

¶¶20

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, having regard to the allegations which are prima facie supported by the averments in the charge sheet.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the petitioner's request for bail cannot be considered at this juncture because the investigation is still at a crucial stage.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

There are no merits in the case for grant of bail to the petitioner; hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — NDPS (Andhra Pradesh HC, Amaravati): Criminal Petition No.5702/2026 under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS by Accused No.6 (Lanka Sri Kalyan Ram) in Crime No.210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, East Godavari District, for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. Prosecution alleged possession/transportation of 24 kg ganja (commercial quantity) and that the petitioner linked the source to transportation; arrested 10.12.2025, 222 days in judicial custody; no adverse antecedents; charge sheet filed within the 180-day statutory period and case taken on file as S.C. No.79 of 2026. Relying on Union of India v. Ram Samujh, Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) and State of Kerala v. Rajesh (strict compliance with Section 37 NDPS conditions), the Court held the allegations prima facie supported by the charge-sheet averments and the investigation at a crucial stage, found no merits for bail, and dismissed the petition; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010353962026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5702/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

LANKA SRI KALYAN RAM, S/O RAMESH AGED 22 YEARSD.NO. 8-322, KOTA MUNDU, KOTHPETA,PEDDAPURAM CELL 9963462759,AADHAR NO. 859602924334. A-6

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.DR MEDISI RATNA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

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.6 on bail in Crime No.210 of 2025 of Kirlampudi Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the

¶21

¶22

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5702 of 2026 Dated 20.07.2026

¶23

Petitioner/Accused Nos.6 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. Medisi Ratna, 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 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.

¶25

Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner and submits that the investigation is not yet completed, and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also submitted that the Petitioner indulged in the possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of Ganja. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶26

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

¶27

On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the Petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 222 days. The Petitioner was apprehended at the scene while allegedly dealing with 24 kilograms of ganja. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner acted as a link between the source and the transportation of the contraband. No adverse

¶28

¶29

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5702 of 2026 Dated 20.07.2026

¶30

criminal antecedents have been reported against the Petitioner. However, the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period of 180 days from the date of the Petitioner's judicial custody, and the case has been taken on file as S.C. No.79 of 2026. Having regard to the allegations, which are prima facie supported by the averments in the charge sheet, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶35

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶36

3 (2020) 12 SCC 122

¶37

¶38

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5702 of 2026 Dated 20.07.2026

¶39

substantial material showing that the accused is not guilty, and recording such a finding is a sine qua non for grant of bail.

¶40

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

¶41

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, the request of the Petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as the investigation is still at crucial stage. There are no

¶42

merits in this case for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶43