APHC010428982025 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: 8805 Between: 1. THURALA GANESH ALIAS SIVA, S/O.APPALANAIDU, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.KRISNAPURAM VILLAGE,NARSIPATNAM MANDAL ANNAKAPALLI DISTRICT, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, A.Annavaram Police Station. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CHALAMALASETTI ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha ‘BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the No.27 of 2024 of A. Annavaram Police Station 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: 8805 OF 2025 THURALA GANESH ALIAS SIVA, S/O.APPALANAIDU, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.KRISNAPURAM VILLAGE,NARSIPATNAM MANDAL ANNAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, A.Annavaram Police Station. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: CHALAMALASETTI ANIL KUMAR the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) (for brevity ‘BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in Crime A. Annavaram Police Station for the offence under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO THURALA GANESH ALIAS SIVA, S/O.APPALANAIDU, AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.KRISNAPURAM VILLAGE,NARSIPATNAM MANDAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 0 and 483 of the , 2023 (for brevity ‘BNSS’) (for brevity 7 on bail in Crime 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 11.02.2025 at 1030 hrs, the Accused while transporting Ganja without any license from Gurrala Panukulu of Odessa boarder to Delhi and Kolkata via Chinthapalli, Anjali Sanivaram, Palamamidi etc.,. The S.I of Police conducted vehicle checking and arrested the Accused 2, 4, 9 and 10 and seized the ganja weighing about 515 Kgs containing 22 plastic gunny bags and other items viz., cell phones, bike, car and cash. 3. Mr. Chalamalasetty Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner has not committed any offence, he was falsely implicated in the case; he is the sole bread-winners of his family; he is 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 Petitioner that he had indulged in possession of ganja. The investigation is still in progress and urged to dismiss the Petition. 5. Heard leaned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No. 7 is that he acted as a transporter for 151 Kgs of ganja. It is not only a commercial quantity, but also colossal quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on execution of a PT Warrant on 20.05.2025. There is one adverse antecedent was reported against the Petitioner. Investigation is not yet completed. At present, there are no merits in this case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. 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”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) 1(2020)12 SCC 122 ‘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) 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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: 8805 OF 2025 30.08.2025 KK