APHC010321092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6612/2025 Between: Korra Sanyasi Rao @ Sanju, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.2 on bail in Crime No.89 of 2022 on the file of Chodavaram Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 2 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 18.03.2022 at 12.00 hours on receipt of reliable information, the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators reached Gowripatnam Junction, at the Outskirts of Narasayyapeta Village, Chodavaram Mandal and found the accused along with 200 kgs of ganja and seized the ganja in the under the cover of mediator’s report. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri G.Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 3 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Titingvalasa Village, Hukumpeta Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation during the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a preliminary charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation. The petitioner role had come out based on the confession of co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2025. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further articulates a credible apprehension that, if released, 4 the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that preliminary charge sheet has been filed awaited for NSC number. The petitioner involved in transportation of possession of 200 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. 6. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” 5 ANALYSIS: 9. As seen from the record and allegations against the petitioner is that he had allegedly involved in dealing with 200 kgs of ganja with the aid of other accused. Undoubtedly, it is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 150 days. After thorough investigation, preliminary charge sheet was filed NSC number is awaited. 10. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously resisted the prayer for grant of bail, contending that the statutory prerequisites for grant of such relief remain unfulfilled. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not prima facie culpable of the alleged offence, nor is the Court satisfied that the Petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would refrain from engaging in activities prejudicial to the administration of justice or the maintenance of public order. 11. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh 1at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused 1(2020)12 SCC 122 6 involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa), (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) „24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.‟ 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which 7 commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely over looked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 21. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.” 12. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to consider request of petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture. CONCLUSION: 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2025 S D P 8 511 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6612 of 2025 Date:23.09.2025 S D P