NDPS Act | Criminal Antecedents And Stage Of Investigation Are Decisive Factors For Grant Of Bail Under Section 480 BNSS: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the period of incarceration undergone by them and the stage of investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a ruling dated 05 October 2026, underscored that while dealing with bail applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the presence of criminal antecedents and the pending status of investigation regarding specific roles played by accused persons are critical considerations.

A single bench of Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that the court must balance the right to personal liberty against the gravity of offences involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The five petitioners were arrested on 11 August 2026 in connection with Crime No. 190 of 2026 at the Airport Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the alleged illegal possession and transportation of 11.100 kgs of ganja. Invoking Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, the accused sought regular bail, contending that they were innocent and sole breadwinners for their respective families. The State vehemently opposed the plea, citing the sensitivity of NDPS cases and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

The primary question before the Court was whether the accused, arrested for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, satisfied the threshold for enlargement on bail. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the variation in individual criminal antecedents and the differing stages of investigation regarding the roles of individual accused warranted a discriminatory approach in granting bail.

Upon evaluating the case records, the Court noted that the petitioners had been in judicial custody for 55 days. A key factor in the Court's determination was the distinction between the accused based on their prior involvement in criminal activities. While Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had no adverse antecedents, the Court observed that Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were either history-sheeters or had prior cases registered against them under the IPC and the NDPS Act.

Impact of Antecedents on Bail

The Court emphasized that the conduct of the accused and their history of involvement in similar offences play a pivotal role in exercising judicial discretion. For Accused Nos. 1 to 3, the Court noted that investigations into their specific roles were still ongoing, and given their prior criminal records, it was not inclined to grant relief. Consequently, the bail petition for these three individuals was dismissed.

Judicial Discretion in Bail

Conversely, the Court adopted a more lenient view for Accused Nos. 4 and 5. Noting the absence of similar adverse antecedents and the fact that a substantial portion of the investigation concerning their specific roles had reached completion, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. This exercise of discretion highlights the court's commitment to individualised justice rather than a blanket approach to bail in NDPS cases.

"The court finds no merit in the case of petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3, as investigation into their specific roles is still pending."

The Court granted bail to Accused Nos. 4 and 5 subject to stringent conditions, including the requirement to execute bonds, report to the police station weekly until the filing of the charge sheet, and refrain from influencing witnesses or leaving the state without authorization. This ensures that the liberty granted does not impede the ongoing judicial process or the integrity of the evidence.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026