APHC010255462026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. TARUN KUMAR GOPI, S/O. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. BUDURU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU POST,BUDUR, MADAHARPAKKAM, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,TAMILNADU STATE. 2. A DINESH, S/O. ARMUGAM, SATYAVEDU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased and 7 on bail pending investigation and trial in Crime No 78 of 2025 of Golugonda Police Station, Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PREM KUMAR T Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4042/2026 TARUN KUMAR GOPI, S/O. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. BUDURU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU POST,BUDUR, MADAHARPAKKAM, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,TAMILNADU STATE. A DINESH, S/O. ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. SATYAVEDU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU MANDAL,CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Court pleased to release the petitioners/Accused and 7 on bail pending investigation and trial in Crime No 78 of 2025 of Golugonda Police Station, Anakapalli District (Visakhapatnam) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA TARUN KUMAR GOPI, S/O. GOPI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. BUDURU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU POST,BUDUR, MADAHARPAKKAM, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,TAMILNADU STATE. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. MANDAL,CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of to release the petitioners/Accused- 3 and 7 on bail pending investigation and trial in Crime No 78 of 2025 of 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4042 of 2026 ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 7, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 78 of 2025 of Golugonda Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioners and 7 other accused were together found in possession of 216 Kgs of ganja. 3. None represented for the petitioners. The petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.3 and 7, who has been in judicial custody since 19.08.2025. Since this is a regular bail application, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as the right and liberty of the individuals is involved. 4. Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a huge commercial quantity of 216 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 19.08.2025. The petitioners were arrested while they were in possession of the contraband. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 216 Kgs of Ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: 8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.05.2026. UPS 5 135 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4042 of 2026 Date: 06.05.2026 UPS