APHC010459312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY.THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBEF%«^^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .‘If'- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9113 OF 2025 Between: Yarramsetty Sai Harsha Vardhan, S/o Yarramsetty Raju, Aged about 24 years. Occ Private Works, R/o D.No. 17-10-50, Rajani Theatre Back side, Jonna Guddi, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District - 535002 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, through Vizianagaram Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram District ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accu sed No.3 in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 46 of 2025 on the file of the Vizianagaram Rural Police Station Vizianagaram District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: ▼ APHC010459312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] I WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9113/2025 Between: YARRAMSETTY SAI HARSHA VARDHAN, S/0 YARRAMSETTY RAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE WORKS, R/O D.NO. 17-10-50, RAJANI THEATRE BACK SIDE, JONNA GUDDI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT - 535002 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, through Vizianagaram Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/Accused No.3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.46 of 2025 of Vizinagaram Rural Police Station, registered for the alleged 2 > 1. offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he along with other accused indulged in dealing with 1.5 kgs of Ganja. The Petitioner sought for grant of pre-arrest bail in NDPS case. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’bie Apex 3. Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh^ at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 l.eld 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 \/. 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 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. ’ 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 8. (2020)12 SCC 122 3 during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section i'7, namely, h) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and 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." 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 thbt 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. 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. 19. 20. 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.” However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of 4. Haryana^ it is held that in general Anticipatory Bail is not maintainableagainst the accused, who is involved in NDPS cases. ^ Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9540 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025. 4 ■ 't 5. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab^, in another decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner paragraph Nos.14 & 15, it is held as under: ^4- Be that as it may, the order dated 21-9-2017 fBeant Sinnh .v State nf Punish 7 sec OnLine P&H 3801] passed by the High Court does not show that there /.<; anv reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial In tha facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and ahonl^t have passed the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without enterinp a firidlng on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise Inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21-9-2017 fBeant Sinah v. State of Punjab. 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 38011 is only to be set aside and we do so. ' m Consequently, the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court is also set aside. All the three accused In both these appeals are directed to surrender before the trial court. Howeve,r we make it clear that they are free to aoolv for regular bail in which case, the Sessions Court will consider the matter on the merits of the application. Before parting with the judgment, we also painfully note that even in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there was no reference to the regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh and that too on production of an interim order passed by the High Court. Had the same been noticed the State would have certainly taken steps much earlier. This is once again to remind the police and the prosecutor that they need to show due diligence and viailance while dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act. ’’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Dinesh Chander and Satpal Singh, has categorically held that anticipatory bail in cases under ‘the NDPS Act is not maintainable and cannot be granted unless the stringent conditions under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’’are satisfied. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that offences under ‘the NDPS Act’ pose a grave threat to society, especially to vulnerable youth, and that those involved in drug trafficking hazard to public welfare. It was further held that bail should not be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The legislative intent behind the Act is to curb the menace of drug abuse and trafficking with strict . at 6. are a ^(2018) 13 SCC 813 5 / enforcement, and Courts must implement the law in its true spirit without diluting its rigor. 7. There are no merits to grant pre-arrest bail in this case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the health condition of the Petitioner, vide certain documents filed wherein it is shown that the Petitioner has been suffering from severe health problems. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned and move an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned for enlarging him on bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned shall endeavour to dispose of the application on its own merits in accordance with law by giving due and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) aays. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // ^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Vizianagaram Rural Police Station, Vizianagaram District. 2. One CC to Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies Stu Cnr HIGH COURT DATED: 10/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 9113 OF 2025 ) *f I I SEP 2025 Co ^^sjlurwnt ^'SssausaS^ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION