APHC010427702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8726 Between: 1. SANJAY PULLAIAH, S/O.PULLAIAH, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.KAMARATHI NAGAR, H.NO.13, AVUDI, CHENNAI TOWN, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. DEVA SAMBABU, S/O.SAMBABU, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.31, OLD AGRAHARAM, PULIYARIKOYEL STREET, AVUDI, CHENNAI TOWN, TAMILNADU STATE. 3. SURYA KUMAR SELVAM, S/O.SELVAM, AGE 28 YEARS R/O.H.NO.509, A VEERAPURAM, MORAL, TIRUVALLUR, TAMILNADU STATE. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SWATHI MURIKIPUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8726 OF 2025 SANJAY PULLAIAH, S/O.PULLAIAH, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.KAMARATHI NAGAR, H.NO.13, AVUDI, CHENNAI TOWN, TAMILNADU STATE. DEVA SAMBABU, S/O.SAMBABU, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.31, OLD AGRAHARAM, PULIYARIKOYEL STREET, AVUDI, CHENNAI TAMILNADU STATE. SURYA KUMAR SELVAM, S/O.SELVAM, AGE 28 YEARS R/O.H.NO.509, A-BLOCK, NEW KANNIYAMMAN NAGAR, VEERAPURAM, MORAL, TIRUVALLUR, TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): SWATHI MURIKIPUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO SANJAY PULLAIAH, S/O.PULLAIAH, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.KAMARATHI NAGAR, H.NO.13, AVUDI, CHENNAI TOWN, DEVA SAMBABU, S/O.SAMBABU, AGE 23 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.31, OLD AGRAHARAM, PULIYARIKOYEL STREET, AVUDI, CHENNAI SURYA KUMAR SELVAM, S/O.SELVAM, AGE 28 YEARS BLOCK, NEW KANNIYAMMAN NAGAR, VEERAPURAM, MORAL, TIRUVALLUR, TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Anandapuram Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.5 to 7 on bail in Crime No.41 of 2025 of Narsipatnam Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, read with 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2025 at 9.00 hrs, on receipt of credible information, the Inspector Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narsipatnam at 11.45 hrs they reached to Gabbada outskirts and hide the bushes at some distance, who suspects on a pulsar bike carrying smart TV boxes parked the bike beside the road and walked towards the road side bushes carrying the boxes. Then, the S.I and his team searched the bushes and found 7 individual hiding with 3 TV boxes containing ganja and some phones and one person trying to escape from the spot and 6 persons were apprehended by the S.I and seized the ganja in total 61.58 kgs including bike and registered a case. 3. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mrs. M. Swathi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have not committed any offence, they were falsely implicated in the case; they are the sole bread-winners of their family; they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and urged to enlarge the Petitioners on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that prima facie material is available against the Petitioners that they had indulged in possession of ganja. The investigation is still in progress and urged to dismiss the Petition. 5. Heard leaned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The allegation against the Petitioners/ Accused No. 5 to 7 is that along with other Accused, they had allegedly dealt with the 60 Kgs of ganja, which is not only a commercial quantity, but also colossal quantity. The record reveals that Accused No.1 contacted Accused 2 and 3, who arranged ganja. Accused No.1 took the assistance of the Petitioners, although no recovery was there from the Petitioners. However, the Petitioners were spot arrested. There is one adverse antecedent vide Crime No.41 of 2025 under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, reported against the Petitioners. Accused No.1 was granted bail on the ground that she was a pregnant. The Petitioners cannot seek principle of parity with Accused No.1. The Petitioners were arrested on 18.04.2025. They have been in judicial custody since then. 7. This Court also is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds believing that the Petitioners are not guilty of offence alleged against them and that they are not likely to commit any offence, if they are enlarged on bail. Request of the Petitioners at this juncture is not found convincing and reasonable. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed for the present. 8. Accusation against the Petitioners are 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”1 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 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 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) 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: 30.08.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8726 OF 2025 30.08.2025 KK