Allowed

Mamidisetti Nagendra Varma alias Chandu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CRLP/7801/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a bail petition filed for an accused involved in transportation of ganja. The Court noted the substantial completion of investigation and released the petitioner on bail subject to eight stringent conditions, including bond execution and passport surrender.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed; the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to conditions including execution of a bond with sureties, weekly appearance to the SHO, prohibition on leaving the state,

Mamidisetti Nagendra Varma alias Chandu Vs The State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010466692026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7801/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

MAMIDISETTI NAGENDRA VARMA ALIAS CHANDU, S/O.VEERABRAHMAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,OCCIPRIVATE EMPLOYMENT,D.NO.3-88, G.PALLIPALEM V- 533244.DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA ERST WHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,Reptd by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P. Amaravati.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

D V V S S N H BHUJANGA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

¶20

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7801 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶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 No.1 on bail in Crime No.317 of 2025 of Razole Police Station, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

¶24

Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. He is a lawabiding citizen. 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.

¶25

Per contra , Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the 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

¶26

¶27

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7801 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶28

stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶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 was found in possession and transportation of 2.00 Kgs of Ganja. It is not a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2026. He has been in judicial custody for the past 20 days. So far eight witnesses have been examined. They are all material and official witnesses. The substantial portion of the investigation with regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner concerned is completed. The scope of the petitioner threatening the witnesses, tampering the evidence, or hampering the investigation may not arise. There is one similar adverse criminal antecedent reported against the petitioner; however, the said antecedent has not been disclosed in the petition.

¶31

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P.,¹ wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that 12026 SCC Online 188

¶32

¶33

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7801 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶34

every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars,

¶35

including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.

¶36

The petitioner is a permanent resident of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. He has got fixed abode. If he is enlarged on bail, he may not evade the process of law. This Court in Crl.P.No.11812 of 2025 vide order dated 26.11.2025 enlarged the Accused Nos.2 and 6 on bail with some stringent conditions. The present petitioner is also standing on the same footing.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is inclined to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail with some stringent conditions.

¶38

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed with the following stringent conditions:

¶39

i. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail subject to his executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole.

¶40

¶41

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7801 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶42

ii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House Officer, on every Saturday in between 10:00 am and 05:00 pm, till filing of the charge sheet.

¶43

iii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the Station House Officer concerned.

¶44

iv. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not commit or indulge in commission of any offence while on bail.

¶45

v. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case and shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶46

vi. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court.

¶47

vii. The Petitioner/Accused No.1 shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer, if he states that he does not have passport, the Petitioner shall submit an affidavit to that effect.

¶48

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶49

Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR

¶50

¶51

Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.7801 of 2026 Dated 16.09.2026

¶52

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶53

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7801 of 2026

¶54

Date: 16.09.2026 RSI/DRNR

Mamidisetti Nagendra Varma alias Chandu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidisetti Nagendra Varma alias Chandu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases