Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Laxman N Bandari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
APHC010338252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7008/2025
Between:
1. LAXMAN N BANDARI, S/o, NARSHAIYA BANDARI, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, R/O A-3, POOJA APARTMENTS CHS, PLEASANT PARK,
MIRA ROAD, EAST, MIRA BHAYANDER THANE, MAHARASHTRA-
401107
2. TIPPEGARI BUGGAMMA, D/O LATE ASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, R/0 H.NO.3/2, SEHERN PALLY, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE
NARAYAN PALLY, MAHBUBNAGAR, TELANGANA - 509210
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K PRIDHVI RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025The Court made the following ORDER:
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),
seeking to enlarge the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail in
Cr.No.176 of 2025 of Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam,
registered against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 & 2 herein for the
offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act‘).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2025 at 12.05 hours, while
the Government Railway Police conducting general check in Visakhapatnam
Railway Station, on suspicious circumstances, the petitioners were
apprehended while they were in possession of ganja. The police seized 19.5
Kgs of ganja in three packets from the 1st petitioner and 13 Kgs of ganja in two
packets from the 2nd petitioner under the cover of a mediatornama and
registered an FIR. During the investigation, the accused were apprehended
and remanded to judicial custody on 16.05.2025.
3. Mr.K.Prudhvi Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2
contends that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are innocent of the alleged offence
and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the
petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed
by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 further contends
that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were allegedly carrying 19.5 Kgs and 13.0 Kgs
of ganja respectively. If the two quantities are apportioned between the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they are not carrying the commercial quantity of ganja.
Therefore, the rigor under Sections 29, 36 and 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ cannot
be applied and urged to enlarge the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on bail.
3 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025
4. The petitioners were arrested on 16.05.2025 and ever since they have
been in judicial custody. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of this
Court in Shafik Khan and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh in
Crl.P.No.4326 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019 at Para No.6, wherein the seized
ganja was apportioned in between the accused and the petitioners were
enlarged on bail as they were not allegedly carrying commercial quantity of
contraband.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 were spot arrested and they were carrying 32.5 Kgs of ganja. The rigor
of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ is squarely applicable to the petitioners. The
judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Shafik Khan‘s case (supra) may
not be applicable to the instant case, as the facts and circumstances are
entirely different. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further contends that
several witnesses are to be examined, co-accused are to be apprehended
and main source of the contraband is yet to unearthed and urged to dismiss
the bail application.
6. As seen from the record, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 1 and 2 were
allegedly found in possession of 19.5 Kgs and 13 Kgs of ganja respectively.
The petitioners were arrested on the spot.
7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Shafik Khan‘s case (supra)
observed that each accused therein, in order to have unlawful enrichment,
individually purchased 4 Kgs of ganja for selling at higher price and hence
apportionment of ganja was considered by not invoking Section 29 of ‘the
NDPS Act‘.
8. In Crl.P.No.6809 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024 in between Setty Vinaya
Kumar & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, another learned Single Judge
of this Court at Para No.4, apportioned the contraband and enlarged the
4 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025
petitioners on bail as the apportioned contraband was not above the
commercial quantity.
9. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanneboina Ramesh
and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at Para No.29, observed that the
accused therein were in possession of 15 KGs of ganja after apportionment
and enlarged them on bail saying that Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ was not
applicable in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case.
10. Another learned Single Judge of this Court in Bablu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh in Crl.P.No.4406 of 2023 dated 11.07.2023 at Para No.6, observed
that the apportionment of 112 KGs of ganja was not possible at the juncture of
considering the bail application, among five accused therein, and dismissed
the bail application.
11. A learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi in Vishwajeet Singh vs.
State (NCT Of Delhi)2 at Para No.28 to 31 held as under:
“28. It is the case of the prosecution that the two accused persons
were found travelling together and were apprehended together on
02.12.2020. They were carrying bags from which 12 kg of Ganja each
was recovered. Though individually the quantity recovered would be
intermediate, the prosecution by analyzing the CDR details of the
accused persons, alleges that as they were acting in conspiracy with
each other, the quantity recovered from both of them have to be
clubbed together making it a commercial quantity.
29. In Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot (Supra), the Supreme Court held
that merely because the accused persons were found together but
were individually carrying the recovered substance, in the absence of
any other evidence to suggest that there was any abetment and/or
criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act,
said provision cannot be invoked. The said case was, however,
considering the order of conviction passed by the High Court.
30. In Nirmala (Supra) and Sagar Nana Borkar (Supra), unlike the
present case, the prosecution had not alleged any other1
2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 233 (AP)
2
2024 SCC Online Delhi 1284
5 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025material/evidence against the accused but for them being travelling
together with contraband.
31. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Awadhesh Yadav (Supra),
after referring to the various precedents on the issue of clubbing
together of the quantities of contraband recovered individually,
observed as under:
“49. From the provisions of law and the essence of case-
laws, as discussed above, following principles can be
culled out governing clubbing of the quantity of
contraband recovered from two or more co-accused, at
the stage of bail:
i. invocation of offence of abetment and/or conspiracy
under Section 29 of the Act is must for clubbing of
quantity. However, there cannot be a straight jacket
formula for clubbing the quantity of contraband recovered
from all the accused, merely on the basis of invocation of
offence under Section 29 of the Act. It will depend on the
factual backdrop of each case and the incriminating
material available against the accused persons.
ii. the incriminating material relied upon to invoke the
offence of abetment and/or conspiracy under Section 29
of the Act, has to be cogent and convincing against each
one of the accused charged with the offence of abetment
and/or conspiracy.
iii. in a case where joint recovery of contraband has been
effected from two or more co-accused, the recovered
contraband cannot be equally divided amongst the
number of accused to determine whether the quantity of
contraband recovered in “commercial quantity” or not.
iv. where accused persons are travelling together in the
same private vehicle individually carrying contraband, it
will not be proper to consider the alleged recovery to be
an individual recovery and the contraband recovered from
all persons can be clubbed.
v. if an accused is a habitual offender, it gives rise to an
inference that he knows the tricks of the trade. In such a
situation, previous involvement of the accused in the
case(s) under the NDPS Act, is an additional factor which
could be considered, besides other incriminating
circumstances, for adding the quantities of contraband
recovered from two or more co-accused.”
6 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025
12. Indeed, although the quantity of ganja originally recovered from the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was below the commercial quantity, the mediators’
report reveals an element of conspiracy involving in transportation of the
contraband from an unknown individual to a specified destination. As per the
mediators’ report dated 16.05.2025, the petitioners agreed to transport
approximately 32.5 Kgs of ganja from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai for unlawful
consideration of Rs. 4,000/- per trip. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and
wife. It is further mentioned in the mediators’ report that the petitioners, along
with their son, were involved in the transportation of the contraband, which
constitutes a commercial quantity, from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai. In this
context, it is relevant to refer and extract applicability of Section 29 of ‘the
NDPS Act.,’ for better understanding and deciding the issue.
13. Section 29 of the NDPS Act says as under:
“29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.–(1)
Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an
offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be
or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance
of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in
section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with
the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an
offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a
party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place
without and beyond India which–
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions
required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to
the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable
under this Chapter, if committed within India.”
14. On a fair reading of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ it is clear that
whoever abets or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable under Chapter IV, irrespective of whether the offence is actually
7 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025
committed as a consequence of such abetment, shall be punishable with the
imprisonment provided for the offence. Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’
stipulates that the offences under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ are cognizable and non-
bailable.
15. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ emphasizes that where the Public
Prosecutor opposes a bail application, the court may consider granting bail
only if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are not guilty of the offence and that they are unlikely to
commit any offence while on bail. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the petitioners were found in possession of a
commercial quantity of ganja and were arrested on the spot. As per the
averments of the mediators’ report, the petitioners, being husband and wife,
shared a guilty intention with an unknown person to transport a commercial
quantity of ganja from Visakhapatnam to Mumbai.
16. The rigor of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ squarely applies to the case
of the petitioners, and therefore, their request for grant of bail cannot be
considered at this juncture. Consequently, the petitioners’ plea to consider the
matter on the basis of apportioning the commercial quantity of ganja between
them is not sustainable and valid in light of Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act.,’
based on the averments of the mediators’ report.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petition has no merit
at this stage.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 06.08.2025
KA
8 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7008/2025
Date: 06.08.2025
KA
9 Crl.P.No.7008 of 2025,
Dated 06.08.2025