APHC010411452025 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: 8287/2025 Between: IJJADA PAPI NAIDU, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 32-6-1, NEAR CHERUVU, POTIKU CHHIVAARI STREET, NEAR INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, TANUKU-534211 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Kovvur Town Police Station, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Dr ANWAR SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 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 BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.162 of 2025 of Kovvur Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 310 (4) of the BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 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 14.06.2025, at about 04.20 P.M., on receipt of credible information regarding illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kovvur Police Station, along with his staff and mediators, rushed to RCRB Center towards Nidadavole Road, Kovvur Town and Mandal, and conducted vehicle checking. On seeing the police, they noticed one Baleno Car bearing No. AP 31 DD 5310. The occupants got perturbed and tried to escape with the car, but the police caught the car and apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 7, who were indulged in possession and transportation of ganja illegally for wrongful gain. Accused Nos.1 to 7 had purchased 26 kgs of ganja at the agency area at 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 Daravaram of ASR District and packed it in one bag. On further enquiry, the accused admitted that on the night of 10.06.2025, they had made preparations to commit a decoity at a gold shop in Chilakapalem. However, the attempt failed. They then planned to execute it on another day, and while proceeding towards Peravali, they were intercepted. Upon checking the car, 26 kgs of ganja worth Rs.78,000/-, an iron rod, a big knife, a small knife, five mobile phones, and cash of Rs.1,130/- were found in their possession and seized under cover of mediator’s report. Accused Nos.1 to 7 were arrested. 3. Mr. Shaik Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitionercontends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. It is further argued that there is a dispute with regard to the alleged usage of the conveyance. In the mediators’ report, it was mentioned that a Baleno car was used, whereas in the remand report, it was stated as a Bolero car. There are procedural lapses committed by the Investigating Officer and Section 52-A of ‘the NDPS Act’ was not complied with. The contraband is not ganja as defined under Section 2 of ‘the NDPS Act’.The petitioner undertakes 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 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 4. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioneris released on bail at this stage, there is a strong likelihood that he may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law.It is further argued that the number of the car is mentioned as AP 31 DD 5310, whereas in the remand report it was mentioned as a Bolero, and in the mediators’ report it was mentioned as a Baleno. In both the reports, the registration number of the car is the same. The petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 26 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity.In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2025 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 65 days. He was indulged in dealing with 26.00 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The investigation is still pending. As rightly mentioned by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, either in the remand report or in the mediators’ report, the vehicle in which the petitioner and other persons allegedly travelled was clearly mentioned with its registration number. The name of the car is different in the remand report and the mediators’ report, and that is a matter for trial. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ would squarely be applicable to the case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. This Court is also 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 any offence while on bail. 7.Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and his alleged role played in the case, there are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 Others1at 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 under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such 1(2020)12 SCC 122 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 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) 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 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 has 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 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8287 of 2025 Dated 20.08.2025 214 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8287 of 2025 Date: 20.08.2025 RSI