APHC010460512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9244/2025 Between: 1. CHINTALA DURGA PRASAD, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGE 25 YEARS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 5TH STREET, GUNTUR. 2. PILLI LEELA KRISHNA, S/O.ANKAMMA, AGE 26 YEARS, PEDDA MASJID BAZAR, VINUKONDA, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Officer, Chinturu P.S, ASR District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟), seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail in Crime No.37 of 2025 of Chinturu Police Station, ASR District registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity „the NDPS Act‟). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2025 at about 4.45 PM, the SI of police, Chinturu PS along with his staff and mediators while conducting raid at the place situated opposite to Chintur Police Station apprehended A-2 and A-3 while they were in possession of 22 Kgs of ganja, then SI of police seized the said ganja, vehicle from the possession of Accused Nos.2 and 3 under the cover of a mediators‟ report and registered a case in the above crime. The accused were remanded to judicial custody. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: 3. Sri Duggirala Subhash, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents of Guntur and they undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners were spot arrested on 02.06.2025. They are in jail for the past 100 days. In the light of the foregoing, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes for granting of bail to the petitioners. She submits that commercial quantity i.e. 22 Kgs of ganja was involved in this case. She further submits that investigation is pending. There are adverse antecedents against the petitioners and it is urged to dismiss the petition. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 5. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioners is that, they had indulged in dealing with 22 Kgs of ganja along with other accused. The petitioners were arrested on 02.06.2025. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 100 days. It is reported that there are 12 cases pending against the accused No.2 and against Accused No.3, there is one adverse case against him. There are similar adverse antecedents pending against the 4 petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner at this juncture. 7. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh 1at 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 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 5 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.” 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. 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. 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 above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. There are no merits in the present bail petition. CONCLUSION: 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9244/2025 Date: 15.09.2025 KA