Dismissed

Kilo Gopal v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CRLP/7831/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by accused No.5 under the NDPS Act for transportation of 30 kilograms of ganja (commercial quantity) where the petitioner allegedly supplied the auto and engaged minors. The court held that strict compliance with Section 37 NDPS Act is required and found no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty, especially since investigation is still progressive with only nine witnesses examined.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kilo Gopal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010467952026

¶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: 7831/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KILO GOPAL, S/O.SAI BABU, AGE 27 YEARS,METTAGUDEM VILLAGE, BODDAGANDI VILLAGE,Y.RAMAVARAM MANDAL, POLAVARAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶20

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.5 on bail in Cr.No.24 of 2022 of Maredumilli

¶21

¶22

Police Station, East Godavari District, registered 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’).

¶23

Mr. Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner was not found in the auto when the ganja was allegedly transported. He is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the

¶24

sole earning member of the family, and his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. There are no similar antecedents reported against the Petitioner. The Petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition.

¶25

Per contra , Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the Petitioner had not only arranged the auto but also engaged minors in the commission of the alleged offence. The investigation is still at a progressive stage. The Petitioner has been involved in the transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja. Therefore, Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ squarely attracts, and it is urged to dismiss the petition.

¶26

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

¶27

On perusal of the record, the Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.5 in this case. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Polavaram District. He has

¶28

¶29

got fixed abode. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he supplied an auto for transportation of 30 kilograms of ganja and instructed Accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport the same. The seized contraband is a commercial quantity. Though there are no adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner and

¶30

he was not found in the auto, the prosecution alleges that he engaged minors in the commission of the offence. The Petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2026 pursuant to his surrender. The investigation is still at a progressive stage so far, only nine witnesses have been examined.

¶31

In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 observed that narcotic offences have a grave and far-reaching 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

1 (1999) 9 SCC 429

¶34

2 (1990) 1 SCC 95

¶35

¶36

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 quanon for grant of bail.

¶37

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 supra, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as the investigation is at progressive stage. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has not committed any offence or that he would refrain from committing offences in future if he is enlarged on bail. There are no merits in the case for grant of bail. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38