Dismissed

Akula Sunitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CRLP/7661/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in an NDPS case. Petitioner Akula Sunitha, Accused No.3, faced charges for allegedly transporting 176.70 kgs of ganja in 84 packets. The court rejected the plea that she owned the vehicle involved as she failed to transfer the title upon sale due to lack of stamps. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that given the commercial quantity and the ongoing investigation, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court to apply for regular bail on the merits of the application.

Akula Sunitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010459222026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7661/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

AKULA SUNITHA, W/O SRIKANTHAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,OCC HOME MAKER,R/O VEMULAWADA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,RAJANNA, TELANGANA-505302.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravati,-522239Through the Station House Officer,Special Enforcement Bureau Station,Prathipadu, Kakinada District

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

MOHAN RAO M

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

¶20

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7661 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.146 of 2024 of Special Enforcemnt Bureau Station, Prathipadu, Kakinada District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, NDPS, Act).

¶24

Mr. M. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and that she has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that she is a home-maker and, therefore, her incarceration would cause undue hardship to her dependants. She is a law-abiding citizen.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner had sold the Tata Motors Goods Carrier vehicle to a third party on 07.10.2016, but the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the said third party as per the rules in vogue. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶26

¶27

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7661 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶28

Per contra , Mr. A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner and submits that the investigation is not yet completed. He further submits that the Petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in which around 176.70 kgs. of ganja in 84 packets was allegedly transported. If the Petitioner is enlarged on prearrest bail, she may not cooperate with the Investigating Officer and may evade the process of law and, therefore, he urged this Court to dismiss the petition.

¶29

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

¶30

As seen from the record, the Petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3. Of course, there are no adverse antecedents against the Petitioner and

¶31

she is a female and a home-maker. She is a permanent resident of Vemulawada Village, Rajanna District, Telangana. The vehicle involved is a Tata Motors Goods Carrier and it was allegedly carrying 176.70 kgs. of ganja. It is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity, allegedly transported in 84 packets.

¶32

The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner sold the vehicle under a Vehicle Sale Agreement dated 07.10.2016 to one Akula Tirupati cannot be appreciated at this point of time. The Petitioner was under a legal obligation to get the vehicle transferred in accordance with the applicable policy and rules soon after it was sold to the

¶33

¶34

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7661 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶35

third party. The prosecution alleges that the Petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle. The alleged Vehicle Sale Agreement does not contain any stamp. Therefore, this Court cannot consider the alleged Sale Agreement said to have been entered into between the Petitioner and one Akula Tirupati so as to believe the version of the Petitioner. The investigation is still at a progressive stage, and the accusations against the Petitioner appear to be well-founded.

¶36

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab¹ , at

¶37

paragraph Nos.14 & 15, held as under:

¶38

14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] is only to be set aside and we do so.

¶39

15. Consequently, the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court is also set aside. All the three accused in both these appeals are directed to surrender before the trial court. However, we make it clear that they are free to apply for regular bail, in which case, the Sessions Court will consider the matter on the merits of the application. Before parting with the judgment, we also painfully note that even in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there was no reference to the regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh and that too, on production of an interim order passed by the High Court. Had the same been noticed, the State would have certainly taken steps much earlier. This is once again to remind the police and the prosecutor that they need to show due diligence and vigilance while dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act.”

¶40

9. The High Court of Rajasthan in Prabhulal & Anr. v.State of

¶41

Rajasthan² , at paragraph No.6 held as under:

¶42

“6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gujar and Mr. Suresh Pareek have vehemently contended that in view of stringent provisions of Section 37 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, petitioners are not entitled to get bail even under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and there is hardly any ground to grant them anticipatory bail in such cases. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are avoiding their arrest and there is sufficient material to establish their involvement in the crime. It was also contended that

¶43

1(2018) 13 SCC 813

¶44

21995 Supreme(Raj) 935

¶45

¶46

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.7661 of 2026 Dated 17.09.2026

¶47

the bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. of co-accused Ram Kumar to whom the contraband articles were to be delivered, as well as the application of co-accused Bharat Singh were rejected by this Court on 15.12.94 and 15.7.94, respectively.In 1994 (3) W.L.C. ([Raj.) 622, while considering the scope of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, it was observed by me, as under:-

¶48

"The object and reason behind passing the amendments was to make stringent provisions of bail as it was thought that such powers should not be used to defeat the object of the Act and a technical plea should not be a ground for under -serving liberty under the Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 37 (1) of the /Act makes is clear that the accused of an offence under the Act is to be severally dealt with and that he should not be allowed to be released on bail unless the conditions contained in Section 37 are satisfied. Though the Act specifically does not prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C., but the legislative intent can be gathered from Section 37 of the Act which restricts the bail even after the arrest of the offender.

¶49

The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special enactment and was enacted with a view to making stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The under lying object of the Act and the stringent provisions of bail introduced by Act No. 2 of 1989 make it clear that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases unless the Court is satisfied that the investigating agency was abusing the provisions of the Act with malafide object to arrest any person. In such cases, the law should be allowed to have its own course."

¶50

Section 25 of the Act provides punishment to the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act.”

¶51

10. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal³

¶52

at para No.4 observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue and directed the State to consider as to whether it proposes to file an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the other accused.

¶53

Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 does not appear to be convincing or reasonable inasmuch as investigation is at a progressive stage. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶54