APHC010366532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7582/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK SADASK VALLI, S/O. SHAILK ABDUL AZEEZ, AGE 77 YEARS OCCUPATION DOCTOR, MUSLIM MINORITY, R/O. H. NO 0-00, RAVINDRA NAGAR, THOPU STREET, CHITVEL, CUDDAPAH, AP, PH. NO. 9441323060. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through A.P.P. High court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VALLEPU MOUNICA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner- accused No. 2 on bail in crime No. 137 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, Kakinada District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 16-06-2025 at about 8 a.m., on NH-16 which is running from Jaggampeta to Rajahmundry, opposite MPDO Office, Gandepalli Village and Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gandepalli Police Station, along with his staff and mediators found and arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 while they were transporting 110.640 K.Gs. of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is contended that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and his arrest would cause undue hardship and prejudice to the dependents of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has permanent place of residence and there is no likelihood of him absconding or evading the process 3 of law. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation so far and assures continued cooperation in future proceedings. It is also urged that the allegations are of a nature that do not warrant custodial interrogation, and if any condition is imposed while granting the bail, the petitioner would not violate it; and it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the grant of bail, contending that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage would seriously hamper the progress of the investigation and may result in non-cooperation from the petitioner. The prosecution further apprehends that the petitioner, if released, may influence or intimidate witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. It is also urged that there exists a real and imminent risk of the petitioners absconding and evading the due process of law. Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential threat to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides.I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: 4 “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 2, as seen from the record, is that he had allegedly indulged in dealing with 110 K.Gs. of Ganja along with other accused. He was spot arrested on 16-06-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 96 days. Along with the petitioner, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also spot arrested. There is one similar adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner. So far, only nine witnesses are examined. Two more accused are to be arrested. Source of the contraband is to be traced and established. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 77 years and he has been suffering from ailments. This Court has sought for medical report from the jail authorities. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, submitted a report on 21-08-2025 stating that the petitioner has been suffering from Hypertension and Diabetes and he is on medication. Symptomatic treatment was given when required. It is further submitted that the jail authorities can provide the required medical treatment to the petitioner and the institution has been taking care and precautions with regard to the health of the petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence if he is enlarged on bail. Statutory period of 180 days is not completed. 5 9. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others1, wherein it was held at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 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: “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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 6 the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129 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.This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129 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. This extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122: (2020) 4 SCC(Cri) 147: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 at page 129 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: 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Ram Samujh and Durand Didier, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. There are no merits in the petition at present and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ Dr. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 19-09-2025, JSK 7 HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7582 OF 2025 DATE: 19-09-2025 JSK