APHC010440282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8796/2025 Between: 1. NAMITHA MONDAL, W/O.MANOJ MONDAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.MUNSIPARA, BAROBINDHA, CHAR RAJAPUR, MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through Station House Officer, Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati District Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...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 BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.133 of 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 2025 of Renigunta Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.1herein and others for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2025 at about 6.30 p.m., on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of Ganja, the Inspector of Police, Renigunta Police Station, Tirupathi District along with his staff proceeded to Room No.207 of SBS Lodge, near Railway Station of Renigunta Town and found Accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of 24.500 Kgs of Ganja worth of Rs.2,45,000/-. On interrogation, they revealed that on the instructions of Accused No.3 they are transporting the said contraband. The police seized the contraband from the possession of the petitioner herein and accused No.2 in the presence of mediators and a case has been registered against them and other accused. 3. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. 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. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 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 petitioner is 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. 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 allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that she had allegedly indulged in dealing with 24.5 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The petitioner/accused No.1 was spot arrested on 15.04.2025. She has been in judicial custody for the past 136 days. There were total four (4) packets of Ganja. The inventory was also completed and it was reported that commercial quantity of Ganja was dealt with. This Court in Crl.P.No.7882 of 2025 vide Order dated 12.08.2025 granted bail to the accused No.2 on the ground that it was reported by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the contraband found was 3.14 grams only, which is not a commercial quantity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that because of the misrepresentation made by the Officials concerned, it was reported in Crl.P.No.7882 of 2025 that the contraband involved in the crime was only 3.14 grams. However, on 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 reverification and based on the inventory report, the contraband involved in this case was 24.5 Kgs, which is a commercial quantity and urged to dismiss the bail application as statutory period of 180 days is not completed. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, her alleged role played in the case, and the petitioner has allegedly been found in possession of 24.5 Kgsof Ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture as investigation is at progressive stage. 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 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 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 „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 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 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 Samujhand 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. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:01.09.2025 UPS 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.8796 of 2025 Dated 01.09.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8796 of 2025 Date:01.09.2025 UPS