APHC010454212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. GABBADI RAVI KUMAR, BS/O RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 020, SADEKU VILLAGE, KOKKIRAPALLI POST, G. MADUGULA MANDAL, A. BANDHAVEEDHI, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR 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 Bharatiya Nagarik IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9032 OF 2025 GABBADI RAVI KUMAR, BS/O RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 020, SADEKU VILLAGE, KOKKIRAPALLI POST, G. MADUGULA MANDAL, A. BANDHAVEEDHI, ALLURI SITHARAMA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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 Nagarik SurakshaSanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO GABBADI RAVI KUMAR, BS/O RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 020, SADEKU VILLAGE, KOKKIRAPALLI POST, G. MADUGULA MANDAL, A. BANDHAVEEDHI, ALLURI SITHARAMA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 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 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.214 of 2021, of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Gajuwaka, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.6 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. Material averments stemming from the case of the prosecution are that on 06.09.2021 at about 9.45 hrs, on receipt of credible information the Police secured the mediators and reached Fly Over Junction, Duvvada, Gajuwaka and noticed three persons sitting and having one read colour cloth bag in front of them. On seeing the Police, they tried to run away. The Police questioned them about the Hashish oil, who revealed that it was extracted from Ganja. On opening the bag, found 9 polythene covers each weighing 1 Kg and another cover weighing half Kg of Hashish Oil, total 8 ½ Kgs of Hashish Oil seized and registered above case. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, and that there is no prima facie material or cogent evidence connecting the Petitioner to the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family and that his incarceration would result in grave hardship and irreparable prejudice to his dependents. The Petitioner undertakes to comply with any condition that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose while considering the prayer for grant of bail. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Sadeku Village, G. Madugula Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District and there exists no apprehension of his absconding or evading the due process of law. The Petitioner has extended full cooperation during the course of investigation and undertakes to continue such cooperation in all future proceedings. It is also urged that the nature of the allegations does not necessitate custodial interrogation, and that the imposition of appropriate conditions would suffice to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing, it is urged to allow the petition. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, asserting that the investigation is at a nascent and critical stage, with several material witnesses yet to be examined. It is submitted that the premature enlargement of the Petitioner on bail would be inimical to the sanctity and efficacy of the ongoing investigative process and may engender deliberate non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. The prosecution further articulates a credible apprehension that, if released, the Petitioner may exert undue influence upon, or intimidate, prosecution witnesses, thereby impeding the administration of justice and vitiating the evidentiary foundation of the case. It is also contended that there exists a palpable and imminent risk of the Petitioner absconding, thereby frustrating the due process of law. 6. In view of the gravity and allegations, coupled with the potential threat posed to the integrity of the investigation, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of discretionary relief and it is urged to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 8. In view of the rival submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel and upon a perusal of the prosecutorial narrative, the pivotal issue now meriting for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 9. The allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.6, on perusal of the record is that he along with other Accused had indulged in dealing with 8 ½ Kgs Hashish Oil. Undoubtedly it is a commercial quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 56 days. Inventory in this case is completed. 10. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner/ Accused No.6 is a partner to Accused No.4 and 5. The role of the Petitioner has come into light based on confession of Accused No.4. Whether confession is valid or not is the matter of trial. The investigation is at progressive stage. Some more witnesses are to be examined. 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that there are two adverse criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioner and vehemently opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner. 12. 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 Others1 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 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 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.” CONCLUSION: 13. 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 indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.09.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9032 OF 2025 25.09.2025 KK