Custody Cannot Be Extended Merely Because the Offence Is under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in 4 Kg Ganja Case

“The contraband seized is not of commercial quantity — and with material part of investigation complete, further incarceration of the accused is unwarranted,” Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, through Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, delivered a significant ruling in Criminal Petition No. 7317 of 2025, holding that prolonged custody of an accused under the NDPS Act is not justified where the quantity of contraband is not commercial, and the investigation has substantially progressed.

The Court allowed the bail application filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case where the petitioner was found in possession of 4 kg of ganja. Stressing that “the material portion of the investigation is completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed,” the Court concluded that no apprehension existed regarding the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence.

“Liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely in cases not involving commercial quantity” – Court Observes

The case arose from a police raid conducted on 27 May 2025 at a vacant brick kiln area near Balaramunipeta, Machilipatnam, following credible intelligence inputs. The raid led to the arrest of 10 individuals, including the present petitioner, who was allegedly found in possession of 4 kg of ganja.

The case was registered as Crime No. 55 of 2025 at the Robertsonpet Police Station, Krishna District. The petitioner was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985—pertaining to the possession of small quantities of narcotic substances.

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mallavolu Nikitha, argued that the accused was falsely implicated, had been in custody for 48 days, and was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court. She emphasized that the quantity seized was below the commercial threshold and urged the Court to consider the petitioner’s cooperation and familial obligations.

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, objected to bail, citing that the investigation was still incomplete and contending that the petitioner might evade justice or influence witnesses if released.

“Continued incarceration, despite non-commercial quantity and progress in investigation, cannot be justified” – High Court

After reviewing the case records, the High Court observed:

“The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 48 days. The quantity of the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner was only 4 Kgs, that means, it is not a commercial quantity.”

The Court acknowledged that the primary phase of investigation had concluded, noting:

“It is submitted that the material portion of the investigation is completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. The chance of the petitioner threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence would not arise.”

In a key observation on judicial discretion in bail matters under NDPS, Justice Lakshmana Rao stated:

“Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in this case and the period of detention and the quantity of the alleged contraband, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain stringent conditions.”

Court Releases Petitioner with Strict Conditions: Weekly Police Visits, Travel Restrictions

Allowing the bail, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on execution of a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, and imposed several restrictions, including:

• Mandatory appearance every Saturday before the Station House Officer, Robertsonpet Police Station between 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

• No travel outside the district without the prior approval of the trial court.

• No repetition of similar offences and full cooperation with the investigating officer.

The trial court was instructed to monitor compliance and ensure the petitioner’s conduct remained within legal bounds.

Court Stresses Bail Must Not Be Denied Mechanically Under NDPS

This ruling reinforces the principle that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act must account for proportionality, especially when non-commercial quantities are involved. The Court’s focus on the duration of custody, the stage of investigation, and absence of compelling reasons to deny bail, signals a measured approach balancing liberty and justice.

The Court’s decision is a reminder that mere invocation of the NDPS Act does not override constitutional protections of personal liberty, particularly where no commercial quantity is involved and the accused has shown willingness to comply with legal process.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2025