APHC010344622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. BOGAVILLI GOVINDHA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 26 Y, RJO H.NO.L ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep. by its Public Pradesh, Amaravati Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CHUKKA KRANTHI KIRAN 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 RamabhadrapuramPolice Station, the petitioner/accused No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7123/2025 BOGAVILLI GOVINDHA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 26 Y, RJO H.NO.L-220/AI, DUKKAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF AP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: CHUKKA KRANTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to ccused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.14 Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sections IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO BOGAVILLI GOVINDHA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED 220/AI, DUKKAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to 14/2025 of gistered against herein for the offence punishable under Sections 2 20(b)(ii)(c) 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 prosecution are that on 10.02.2025 at 12:00 hours, while the complainant and police personnel were conducting routine vehicle checks at the check post near Kottakki Village Junction, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, an unidentified individual driving a car bearing registration number AP28DY4509 (originally No.DL8CAP0153) approached from the Ramabhadrapuram side.Upon noticing the police presence, the said individual halted the vehicle approximately 100 meters from the check post and, upon being approached, diverted the vehicle onto a nearby gravel road. After proceeding a short distance, the driver abandoned the vehicle near Goddess Durgadevi Temple at Santhathota, Kottakki Junction and absconded from the scene.Subsequent to inspection of the abandoned vehicle it was revealed the presence of approximately 147 kilograms of contraband ganja, suspected to be in transit for illegal distribution. A mediators’ report was duly prepared and recorded between 12:00 and 14:00 hours on the same day. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Chukka Kranthi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations made against the Petitioner are unfounded, baseless, and unsupported by any credible evidence. The Petitioner has no connection 3 whatsoever with the alleged offence, and the FIR appears to be a result of conjecture rather than fact.The alleged contraband, 147 kilograms of ganja, was recovered from a vehicle reportedly abandoned by an unknown individual. The Petitioner was neither present at the scene nor found in possession of any contraband. He had no knowledge of the vehicle or its contents, and there is no material to suggest his involvement in the transportation or possession of the contraband.The prosecution’s case against the Petitioner rests solely on confessional statements, which are inherently weak and inadmissible unless corroborated by independent evidence. No direct or circumstantial evidence has been brought forth to establish the Petitioner’s involvement. The investigation has not yielded any material linking the Petitioner to the crime, apart from these statements. 4. The Petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents and has cooperated fully with the investigation. The substantial part of the investigation is complete, barring the filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the Petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.The petitioner is a daily wage earner and the sole breadwinner of his family, hence, if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, Petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed in granting of bail stating thatinvestigation is not completed; if the petitioneris enlarged on bail, he would not be available for 4 the investigation and Petitioner may threaten the witnesses;he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dismiss the bail petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 7. The petitioner/Accused No.2 is alleged to have been engaged by Accused No.1 for transporting 147 kg of contraband ganja, supplied by Accused No.7 as per the version of the prosecution. The role of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 came into light after the confession of the Accused No.1. The Petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested on 31.03.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 155 days. There are call detail records (CDRs) in between the Petitioner and other accused at the relevant point of time. The Petitioner has not completed the statutory period of 180 days for grant of bail. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is likely to commit another offence once if enlarged on bail. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1at 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 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: 1(2020)12 SCC 122 5 “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 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. 6 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.” CONCLUSION: 9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty for that offence and that the Petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the gravity of the offence, the absence of direct exculpatory evidence, and the stage of investigation, the Court finds no grounds to grant bail under the stringent conditions of ‘the NDPS Act’. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 02.09.2025 AG