APHC010390452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7933/2025 Between: 1. EPU DHANARAJU ALIAS HARI, S/O.POTHURAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.SINGARAJUPETA, M.KOTHAPATNAM VILLAGE, ROLLAGUNTA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLY DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Chillakur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. 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 petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.3 of 2025 2 of Chillakur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District registered against the petitioners/Accused No.6 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 07.01.2025 at 17.45 hours, on receipt of reliable information about illegal transportation of ganja, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station, along with staff and mediators proceeded to near Ramalayam Temple, Kadivedu Centre towards Kota road, found Accused Nos.1 to 4 in possession of 72 Kgs of ganja. On interrogation, the accused revealed that they received the said ganja from Accused Nos.5 to 8. A case has been registered against the accused. The police arrested the petitioner/Accused No.6 on 29.04.2025 in Crime N.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station on PT warrant. 3. Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.6, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2025 on PT warrant in Crime No.161 of 2025 of Jangareddigudem Police Station. No contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner herein. Basing on the confession of other accused, the police 3 arrested the petitioner herein on PT warrant and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner/Accused No.6 and submitted that investigation is still pending and other co-accused are yet to be apprehended. She further submits that there is one adverse antecedent against the petitioner and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.6 is that he has allegedly indulged in transportation of 72 Kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2026 on execution of PT warrant. Of course, based on the confession given by Accused No.5, the petitioner/Accused No.6 was arraigned as accused. As seen from the records, the petitioner is the main supplier of the contraband. There is one adverse antecedent reported against the petitioner as per the submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Investigation is still pending. Accused Nos.9 to 11 are yet to be apprehended. A learned Single Judge of this Court in CrlP.No.4937 of 2025 on 09.05.2025 enlarged Accused Nos.7 and 8 on bail. This Court enlarged Accused No.5 on bail vide orders dated 15.07.2025 in Crl.P.No.6986 of 2025. However, the allegations against the petitioner herein are altogether different when compare to the allegations 4 leveled against Accused No.5. Hence, the principle of parity cannot be extended to the present petitioner. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s alleged role played in the case and also the investigation is at progressive stage, enlarging the petitioner on bail would cause serious impediment to the investigation. The petitioner had allegedly supplied 72 Kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed grant of bail. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. 8. Accusation against the petitioner 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 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 5 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 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) 6 147: 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 petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.08.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7933/2025 Date: 18.08.2025 KA