1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 & 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in F.I.R.No.174 of 2019 of Annavaram Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.2019 at about 05.00 a.m. at Mandapam Center, Annavaram Village, Sankhavaram Mandal, upon receipt of credible information regarding illegal transportation of contraband, the Circle Inspector of Police, Prathipadu, along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Annavaram, and staff, conducted a raid in the presence of the Tahsildar and mediators. During the raid, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were apprehended while transporting 40 Kgs of Ganja in eight plastic packets kept in a trolley bag in Auto bearing Regd.No.AP31TW9730, with intent to sell for wrongful gain. The contraband along with the vehicle was seized, thereby establishing the offence of illegal possession and transportation of Ganja for sale.

3. Sri Karumanchi Dheeraj Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.174 of 2019 of Annavaram Police Station, has been in continuous custody since 04.09.2025 owing to dismissal of his application under Section 72(2) of ‘the BNSS.,’ to recall the NBW, despite the fact that his earlier bail was granted in Crl.P.No.5626/2019 on 18.10.2019 and he had scrupulously attended Court until 11.03.2024, when his absence was occasioned by bona fide reasons of mental health disorder, depression, anxiety, physical ailments, and unforeseen transport delay. It is urged that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial in NDPS S.C.No.14/2020, pending since 2019, amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that successive bail applications have been dismissed without any fresh incriminating material being shown by the prosecution. Learned Counsel submits that Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail. Hence, it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

4. Per contra, Mr. A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner, submitting that the offence alleged against the Petitioner under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ involves possession and transportation of 40 Kgs of Ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby attracting stringent provisions against grant of bail. It is urged that the Petitioner, though earlier released on bail, violated the conditions by failing to attend Court on 11.03.2024, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, and thereafter remained absent for nearly one and a half years without taking steps to recall the warrant until 04.09.2025. Their vague explanation of bus delay cannot justify such prolonged absence, and their conduct demonstrates disregard for judicial process. The prosecution contends that if enlarged on bail, securing the presence of the Petitioner would be highly difficult, there is every likelihood of absconding, and the proceedings in NDPS S.C.No.14/2020 would be stalled. It is further submitted that successive bail applications have already been dismissed, and no new grounds or changed circumstances have been shown to warrant reconsideration. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

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

6. Upon a examination of the record, it is observed that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 failed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.03.2024, pursuant to which the learned Trial Court was constrained to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant against him. It is further discernible from the material available on record that the application seeking recall of the said warrant came to be instituted only on 04.09.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained lapse of nearly one and a half years. During this substantial interregnum, no steps whatsoever were taken by the Petitioner to approach the Court for cancellation or recall of the NBW within a reasonable time. The learned Trial Court, therefore, rightly took note of the prolonged inaction and lack of diligence on the part of the Petitioner. The reasons assigned in support of the application are vague, bald, and wholly unconvincing. Significantly, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why the Petitioner remained inactive for such a prolonged period. Even assuming that the Petitioner’s journey was delayed on account of the late arrival of a bus, such circumstance, by itself, cannot furnish a satisfactory justification for his continued absence thereafter. The Petitioner could very well have appeared before the learned Trial Court and sought appropriate relief by surrendering himself and moving for recall of the warrant.

7. The learned Trial Court has further observed that the persistent absence of the Petitioner seriously impeded the smooth progress of the trial. The learned Trial Court recorded a well-reasoned apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, securing the future presence of the Petitioner may become exceedingly difficult, particularly in view of his past conduct and lack of cooperation. The case arises under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.,’ and has remained pending since the year 2020. In such circumstances, the conduct of the Petitioner assumes considerable significance. The learned Trial Court would consider, in the event the co-accused continue to abscond, appropriate measures, including splitting up the case, may be resorted to in accordance with law so as to ensure that the proceedings against the Petitioner are not indefinitely stalled. It has also been brought on record that there exists a similar adverse antecedent against the Petitioner, which further weighs against the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour.

8. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the entire factual matrix and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is finds no reasonable ground to conclude that the Petitioner is prima facie not guilty of the alleged offence or that, if released on bail, he would desist from engaging in similar unlawful activities in future. The statutory parameters governing the grant of bail, particularly in prosecutions under ‘the NDPS Act.,’ have not been satisfactorily met. The conduct of the Petitioner, coupled with the absence of any cogent explanation for his prolonged non-appearance and the existence of adverse antecedents, militates against the grant of discretionary relief. Consequently, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the present Criminal Petition, and it is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the protracted pendency of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to expedite the trial and bring the matter to its logical conclusion at the earliest. The learned Trial Court shall also be at liberty, if the circumstances so warrant and in accordance with law, to split up the case insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, so as to ensure the effective and expeditious administration of justice.

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