APHC010368412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7616/2025 Between: 1. TELLAGADIA RAMESH ALIAS MUTTE MUNNA, S/O VENKATESWARLU, 20 YRS, D.NO.41-28/3-86, CURRENT OFFICE STREET, CHALASANI NAGAR, RANIGARITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA. 2. TADEPALLI NAVEEN ALIAS DON NAVEEN,, S/O NUKARAJU, 28 YRS, D.NO.41-29/4-30, KORAVARI STREET BALAJI NAGAR, RANIGARITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA. 3. GUNJA SIVA DURGA RAO,, S/O SRINU (LATE), 27 YRS, D.NO.41- 1/14-658, TARAKA RAMA NAGAR KATTA, RANIGARI THOTA, VIJAYAWADA. 4. MAHANKALI SRINU ALIAS BOMMAKALU SRINU, S/O DURGA RAO, 29 YEARS, RESIDENT D.NO.41-28/7-37B, TAMMINA POTHURAJU STREET, RANIGARITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA. 5. DEVELLA BHARGAV,, S/O GOPI, 21 YRS, PUTTA ROAD, JENDA CHETTU CENTER, OPP RCM CHURCH, RANIGARITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi Through S.H.O., Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, N.T.R District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 KOLUSU SOUNDARYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 on bail in Crime No.93 of 2025 of Krishnalanka Police Station, NTR District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.06.2025 at about 11.30 hours, on receipt of reliable information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., along with mediators and staff, rushed near Rajiv Gandhi Flower Market, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, and found five persons with bags. On seeing the police, they attempted to escape but were apprehended. On interrogation, the accused confessed to their earlier involvement in thefts and ganja trafficking and stated that on 14.06.2025, Accused Nos.1 and 2 procured 25 kgs of ganja from the agency area at Rs.2,000/- per kg and returned to Vijayawada on 16.06.2025, where they regrouped and divided the contraband. On 3 verification, 25 kgs of ganja was seized in the presence of mediators, and the accused were arrested. 3. Ms.Kolusu Soundarya, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioners were allegedly found in possession of 25.00 kgs of ganja. Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely applicable to the present case, on careful perusal of the mediators’ report. The 4 inventory is still pending. Accused No.1 is a rowdy-sheeter and has several antecedents. Accused No.2 has five IPC offences registered against him. Accused No.3 has a suspect sheet opened against him. The petitioners were arrested on 16.06.2025, and the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not guilty of such offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, their alleged role played in the case, and the petitioners have allegedly been found in possession of 25.00 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, there are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accusation against the petitioners is well founded. Statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others(2020)12 SCC 122 at 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: “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 5 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.” 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 6 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.” 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh and Durand Didier, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 20.08.2025 RSI 7 181 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7616 of 2025 Date: 20.08.2025 RSI