1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.304 of 2024 of Anakapalli Rural Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.12.2024, acting on credible information, the police conducted a vehicle checking operation at Vooderu Junction, Anakapalli Rural, and intercepted an Ertiga car suspected of transporting Ganja. On noticing the police, Accused No.1 allegedly escaped, while Accused Nos.2 to 4 were apprehended at the spot. During the search, the police allegedly seized 100 kilograms of Ganja packed in five gunny bags from the car, along with cash, mobile phones, and the vehicle under the cover of a mediators' report. The investigation further revealed that the accused had allegedly procured the contraband for transportation and sale at Visakhapatnam. Based on the said seizure and the statements of the accused, the present crime was registered, and Accused Nos.2 to 4 were arrested, while efforts were initiated to apprehend the absconding Accused No.1.

3. Mr. Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent and that he has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner arrested on 12.09.2025 and in judicial custody for the past 293 days. The Petitioner would abide by any conditions that this Court deems fit to impose while enlarging him on bail. Hence, it is urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

4. Per contra, Mr.A.Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The Petitioner has indulged in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja. It is further submitted that there are three adverse antecedents reported against the Petitioner. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No.1. He was arrested on 12.09.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 293 days. It is alleged that he was indulged in dealing with 100 Kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. After thorough investigation charge sheet was filed on 18.02.2026 that is within 180 days of the statutory period. There are altogether three similar antecedents reported against the Petitioner.

7. Be that as it may, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2020) 11 SCC 648), at para No.7, observed that mere pendency of criminal antecedents itself is not a ground to deny the request for grant of bail.

8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., (2026 SCC Online 188), wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 47 and 48, it was observed that bail applications are often considered on the basis of prima facie material placed before the Court at different stages of the proceedings. The Court held that non-disclosure of material facts, such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, custody period, and the stage of trial, may result in an erroneous grant or refusal of bail. It was further held that every bail applicant is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and any coercive processes pending against him, duly supported by an affidavit. Such disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency, uniformity, and integrity in bail adjudication.

9. The revised Standing Order No.282(1) of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh stated in every application for bail presented to the High Court, the Petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.

10. In the present case, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the pendency of the previous antecedents against him, though the same are reflected in the remand report.

11. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zeba Khan supra, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.