Prolonged Pre-Charge-Sheet Custody: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Conditional Bail to Accused No. 3 in an NDPS Case

Field Details

• Case / Party- Name Vakada Pawan Kumar alias Mukka & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
• Court Name - High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
• Case Number(s)- Criminal Petition No. 9232 of 2026
• Citation- Not available. The PDF identifies the case by its case number and CNR, APHC010553332026.
• Coram / Judges- Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, Single Judge
• Judgment-  Authored By Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao
• Date of Decision - 27 October 2026
• Nature of Proceedings- Criminal petition seeking bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
• Letters Patent / Appeals- None stated
• Counsel Appearances-  Petitioners: Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao. Respondent-State: Public Prosecutor; the order identifies the Assistant Public Prosecutor as opposing bail.
• Outcome-  Partly allowed. Bail granted to Accused No. 3, while the petition was withdrawn/not pressed for Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

B. HEADNOTE

Key Proposition: The Court granted conditional bail to Accused No. 3 after considering his 197 days in judicial custody, the absence of a filed charge-sheet, the prosecution’s allegations concerning 24 kg of ganja, his antecedent, and the possibility of securing his presence through stringent conditions. The order does not establish a general rule that prolonged custody alone entitles an accused to bail.

Catchwords

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 480 and 483 – Bail – Prolonged judicial custody – Held, bail granted to Accused No. 3 subject to stringent conditions after consideration of the case circumstances. 
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) – Alleged possession/dealing in 24 kg of ganja – Gravity of allegations – Held, the seriousness of the allegations was considered alongside the custody period and other circumstances.
• Criminal procedure – Pending investigation – Risk of absconding and witness interference – Held, the Court considered whether stringent conditions could address these risks. 

The petitioners sought bail in Crime No. 7 of 2026 registered at Gurthedu Police Station for alleged offences under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged involvement in dealing with 24 kg of ganja, and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed. Accused Nos. 1–3 had been arrested on 13 April 2026 and were stated to have spent 197 days in judicial custody. The petition was not pressed for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 because a separate bail petition had been filed for them. For Accused No. 3, the Court considered the period of custody, his permanent residence, an adverse antecedent, the gravity of the allegations and the risks identified by the prosecution. It granted bail subject to a bond, sureties, weekly police-station attendance and other restrictions. The petition was therefore partly allowed. 

C. BACKGROUND / SYNOPSIS

Key facts

• The petition concerned three accused in Crime No. 7 of 2026 registered at Gurthedu Police Station, Polavaram District.
• The alleged offences were under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), read with Section 8(c), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in dealing with 24 kg of ganja.
• The accused were arrested on 13 April 2026 and were stated to have remained in judicial custody for 197 days.
• At the time of the order, the charge-sheet had not been filed.
• Accused No. 3 had one similar adverse antecedent recorded against him.
• Accused No. 3 was stated to be a permanent resident of Polavaram District with a fixed abode. 

Procedural history

1. 13 April 2026: Arrest of the accused.
2. Following arrest: Criminal investigation continued; the charge-sheet had not been filed by the date of the High Court order.
3. Bail proceedings: A separate petition, Criminal Petition No. 8668 of 2026, had been filed for Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
4. 27 October 2026: The High Court permitted the present petition to be withdrawn/not pressed insofar as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned, considered bail for Accused No. 3 and granted it subject to conditions. 

Impugned action and relief sought

The petitioners sought enlargement on bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS. The State opposed bail on the grounds that the investigation was ongoing, material witnesses remained to be examined, and release could create a risk of absconding and interference with the investigation. The Court ultimately granted relief only to Accused No. 3.

D. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

The order does not set out formal framed issues. The following issues emerge from its reasoning:

1. Whether Accused No. 3 should be released on bail despite the gravity of the alleged NDPS offence and the adverse antecedent.

2. Whether the period of 197 days in judicial custody, the absence of a filed charge-sheet, the accused’s permanent residence and the availability of stringent conditions supported the grant of bail.

3. Whether the petition should continue insofar as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned when counsel sought to withdraw/not press their relief.

E. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

Petitioners / Accused

• Counsel sought to withdraw/not press the petition in favor of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 because a separate bail petition had been filed for them.
• For Accused No. 3, counsel submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
• It was submitted that Accused No. 3 was the sole earning member of his family and that continued incarceration would cause hardship to his dependents.
• Counsel stated that the accused was law-abiding and would comply with conditions imposed by the Court. 

Respondent / State

• The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed bail.
• The State submitted that the investigation was ongoing and material witnesses remained to be examined.
• It argued that release could create a risk of absconding, hamper the investigation, and allow the accused to evade the process of law.
• The order also records that an application had been filed seeking an extension of judicial custody beyond 180 days, and that the charge-sheet had not been filed. The judgment does not clearly attribute every part of this passage to a separate submission by the State. 

F. COURT'S OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS

Re: Issue (i) – Bail despite the gravity of the alleged offence

• The Court noted the allegation that the accused were dealing with 24 kg of ganja.
• It expressly took account of the nature and gravity of the allegations.
• It also noted that Accused No. 3 had one similar adverse antecedent.
• Despite these factors, the Court concluded that Accused No. 3 could be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.

Held: Bail was granted to Accused No. 3. The order does not explain the weight assigned to each individual factor in a detailed balancing exercise.

Re: Issue (ii) – Custody period, residence and risks to the investigation

• Accused No. 3 had been in judicial custody for 197 days.
• The charge-sheet had not yet been filed.
• The Court recorded that Accused No. 3 was a permanent resident of Polavaram District and had a fixed abode.
• It considered that, subject to stringent conditions, there was no likelihood of absconding, threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence or hampering further investigation.
• The Court imposed reporting, travel, cooperation and non-interference conditions to manage those risks.

Held: The Court considered the custody period and the accused’s local residence alongside the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of interference, and granted conditional bail.

Re: Issue (iii) – Relief for Accused Nos. 1 and 2

• Counsel stated that the petition was to be withdrawn/not pressed for Accused Nos. 1 and 2 because a separate petition had been filed for them.
• The Court permitted the relief to be not pressed and recorded that the petition concerning Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed as withdrawn.

Held: No bail relief was granted to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in this petition. 

G. DECISION & DIRECTIONS

The Criminal Petition was partly allowed. Accused No. 3 was granted bail subject to the following conditions:

1. Bond and sureties: Execute a bond for ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.
2. Weekly attendance: Appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the charge-sheet is filed.
3. Travel restriction: Not leave Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the concerned Station House Officer.
4. No further offence: Not commit or participate in any offence in the future.
5. Cooperation with investigation: Cooperate with the Investigating Officer and remain available for interrogation when required.
6. No witness interference: Not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise anything to a person acquainted with the facts to prevent disclosure of those facts to the Court.
7. Passport: Surrender any passport to the Investigating Officer; if claiming not to possess one, submit an affidavit to that effect.
8. The petition concerning Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not record an award of costs.

H. LEGAL PROVISIONS DISCUSSED

Provision Relevance

• BNSS, 2023 – Section 480 Invoked as part of the statutory basis for the bail petition.
• BNSS, 2023 – Section 483 Invoked as part of the statutory basis for the bail petition.
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) Provision cited in connection with the alleged narcotics offence.
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) Provision cited for the alleged offence involving ganja.

I. PRECEDENTS CITED

None discussed. The judgment does not identify or analyse any judicial precedent.