APHC010370162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. BATHI MANI KANTA BALA KRISHNA, S/0 CHINA RAJU AGED 22 YEARS ,R/0 BUTCHEMPETA VILLAGE , ROLUGUNTA MANDAL ,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Officer, Rolugunta Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K PRIDHVI RAJU 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 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7640/2025 BATHI MANI KANTA BALA KRISHNA, S/0 CHINA RAJU AGED 22 YEARS ,R/0 BUTCHEMPETA VILLAGE , ROLUGUNTA MANDAL ,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 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 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO BATHI MANI KANTA BALA KRISHNA, S/0 CHINA RAJU AGED 22 YEARS ,R/0 BUTCHEMPETA VILLAGE , ROLUGUNTA MANDAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through the Station House Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...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 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), 2 seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.11 on bail in Crime.No.44 of 2025 of Rolugunta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioner/Accused No.11 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’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with ten other accused, was found in possession of 750 kgs of Ganja while storing the same. Upon noticing the police personnel, the petitioner and Accused No. 10 allegedly fled from the scene, whereas the remaining accused were apprehended red-handed while in possession of the contraband. 3. Sri K. Pridhvi Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner allegedly acted as a pilot of the vehicle in which 750 kgs of Ganja was transported. He has got fixed abode, and he is the sole breadwinner of the family. He would abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the petitioner acted as a pilot for transportation of 750 kgs of Ganja. It is a commercial quantity. The investigation is not yet completed and urged to dismiss this petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3 6. As seen from the record, on 29.05.2025, Accused Nos.1 to 9 while transporting 750 kgs of Ganja in a vehicle arrested and on confession of other accused the petitioner was arrested on 02.06.2025. He has been judicial custody for the past 158 days. The allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as a pilot of a vehicle in which alleged seized contraband was transported. So far only 10 witnesses were examined. The petitioner has not completed 180 days on adequate period in the judicial custody. As the investigation is still at nascent stage, the request for grant of bail to the petitioner/Accused No.11 is not found convincing or reasonable. 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), (1990) 1 SCC 95 ‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and 1(2020)12 SCC 122 4 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.” 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/Accused No.11, 5 this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.11.2025 AG/PRA 6 36 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7640/2025 Date: 07.11.2025 AG/PRA