APHC010492022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9787/2025 Between: 1. TAMARANA VENKATA SRINIVASA RAJA, S/O. RAM BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC DRIVER, R/O. ROLUGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MSVS SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner-accused No. 3 seeking to enlarge him on bail in crime No. 44 of 2005 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. On 29-0-5-2025, the petitioner, who is accused No. 3, along with other accused were found and arrested while they were transporting 750 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is the further case of prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 engaged accused No. 3 and accused No. 3 arranged accused Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 11 for transportation of Ganja. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUSNEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Smt. M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. 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 ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, 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, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of learned counsel for both sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail?” ANALYSIS: 8. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No. 3 is that he had indulged in dealing with 750 K.Gs. of Ganja. It is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The petitioner acted as a driver of the vehicle, in which the contraband was transported. Inventory is completed. So far, only ten witnesses are examined. Some more witnesses are yet to be 4 examined. Investigation is at progressive stage. The petitioner was arrested on 29-05-2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 121 days. 9. 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 to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others1 , wherein it is held at para Nos.18 to 21 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.‟ 1(2020)12 SCC 122 5 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.” 6 CONCLUSION: 10. 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. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 26.09.2025 JSK 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9787 OF 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 JSK