The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged judicial custody without trial, even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, cannot override the fundamental presumption of innocence. In granting bail to four accused charged under the NDPS Act, the Court emphasized that prior criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail when custody has exceeded two hundred days without custodial interrogation being sought.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Criminal Petition No. 4560/2026 was filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail for four accused persons charged in Crime No. 276 of 2025, registered at Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. The accused are alleged to have been arrested in possession of 80 kilograms of ganja, classified as a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Key Facts
- The accused persons are: (1) Korra SrINU, aged 42, resident of Bakkalapanuku, Alluri Seetharamaraju District; (2) Dukkari Ramana Murthy, aged 37, resident of Nuramathi V, G. Madugula M, Paderu; (3) Vanthala Suribabu, aged 28, resident of Gannuruputtu V, G. Madugula M, Paderu; and (4) Somisetty Lovaraju, aged 37, resident of Jagannadhapuram Village, Pathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.
- All four accused have fixed places of residence within Andhra Pradesh.
- The accused were arrested on 27.11.2025 and have been in judicial custody for 201 days as of the date of the order.
- The charge sheet was filed on 18.05.2025, within the 180-day statutory limit under the NDPS Act.
- No application for custodial interrogation was filed by the prosecution during the custody period, and the statutory window for such interrogation has expired.
- Accused No.1 had prior involvement in Crime No. 196 of 2024 under the NDPS Act.
- Accused No.3 had prior involvement in Crime No. 13 of 2023 under the NDPS Act.
- The prosecution has not completed examination of all material witnesses.
Procedural History
- 27.11.2025: Arrest of all four accused at the scene of seizure of 80 kg ganja.
- 18.05.2025: Charge sheet filed by the police within 180 days of arrest.
- 16.06.2026: Criminal Petition filed before the High Court seeking bail after 201 days of judicial custody.
- 16.06.2026: Hearing and order passed by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners/Accused
The accused are innocent and falsely implicated. They are the sole earners of their families. Their continued incarceration causes undue hardship to dependents. They undertake to comply with any bail conditions. No application for custodial interrogation was filed, indicating the investigation is no longer dependent on detention.
For the Respondent/State
The investigation is ongoing. Key witnesses remain to be examined. Release of accused may lead to tampering with evidence, witness intimidation, or absconding. Prior criminal antecedents indicate a pattern of recidivism.
Relief Sought
Bail with stringent conditions, including bond execution, appearance before trial court, non-leaving the state, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted to accused persons charged with possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics under the NDPS Act, where they have been in judicial custody for over 200 days, no custodial interrogation was sought, and they have prior antecedents under the same Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that the accused have been in custody for 201 days without any application for custodial interrogation, indicating the investigative stage is complete. The prosecution has not demonstrated any imminent risk of evidence tampering or flight. The accused have permanent residences in Andhra Pradesh, reducing the risk of absconding. Reliance was placed on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh to contend that prior antecedents cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail. The prolonged detention without trial violates the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the nature of the offence - possession of 80 kg of ganja - is grave and involves organized trafficking. The investigation is still in progress with material witnesses yet to be examined. The accused have prior NDPS Act convictions, indicating a propensity to reoffend. Granting bail at this stage may jeopardize the investigation and enable collusion with other accused or witnesses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the duration of custody, the absence of any application for custodial interrogation, and the statutory timeline for filing the charge sheet. It noted that the charge sheet was filed within the 180-day limit, and the prosecution did not seek extension of custody for interrogation. The Court observed that the accused have not absconded, have fixed residences, and have cooperated with the investigation thus far.
"Criminal antecedents or similar adverse antecedents cannot be the sole basis for refusal of bail."
The Court relied on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh to hold that while prior offences may be considered, they cannot be determinative in the absence of a concrete risk of flight or evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence remains intact until conviction, and prolonged detention without trial serves no legitimate purpose when the investigative phase is closed. The Court further noted that the accused are not habitual offenders in the sense of being repeat offenders in unrelated crimes, and their prior offences are of the same nature, which does not automatically equate to a threat to public order.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the commercial quantity alone justifies denial of bail, holding that while gravity of offence is relevant, it must be balanced against the right to liberty and the duration of custody. The Court found no material to suggest that the accused would obstruct justice if released on bail, especially given the stringent conditions proposed.
The Verdict
The Criminal Petition is allowed. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) each accused shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam; (ii) they shall appear before the Trial Court on every adjournment; (iii) they shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without prior permission from the concerned SHO; (iv) they shall not commit any future offence; (v) they shall cooperate with the investigating officer and make themselves available for interrogation; (vi) they shall not intimidate or influence any witness; and (vii) they shall surrender their passports or submit an affidavit stating they do not possess one. The order takes effect immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custody Duration Can Override Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners must argue that prolonged judicial custody beyond the investigation phase, especially when custodial interrogation is not sought, triggers a duty to consider bail under Article 21.
- In NDPS cases, the commercial quantity alone is insufficient to deny bail if custody exceeds 180 - 200 days without prosecutorial need for further detention.
Prior Antecedents Are Not Automatic Bar to Bail
- Courts must distinguish between prior offences as evidence of propensity versus as a standalone reason for denial.
- The Prabhakar Tewari principle now binds all High Courts: prior NDPS convictions require additional, specific evidence of flight risk or tampering to justify denial.
Procedural Compliance by Prosecution Affects Bail Outcomes
- If the prosecution fails to file for custodial interrogation within statutory limits, courts may infer that detention is no longer necessary.
- Accused with fixed addresses and no history of absconding are entitled to bail even in serious drug cases, provided conditions are strictly imposed.
Bail Conditions Must Be Tailored, Not Standardized
- The Court’s conditions - passport surrender, non-leaving state, mandatory appearance - are model conditions for NDPS bail.
- Practitioners should propose similar tailored conditions to increase likelihood of bail grant.
The Presumption of Innocence Is Procedural, Not Theoretical
- The Court treated the presumption of innocence as an active procedural right, not a passive legal fiction.
- This reinforces that detention without trial is punitive and must be justified by concrete, not speculative, risks.
