APHC010548212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10659/2025 Between: 1.MEKALA RAMANAMMA, W/O VENKATESU, AGED 45 YEARS, D.NO. 1-182/A, SANJEEV NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO Nidadavole Circle PS Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.100 of 2025 of Nidadavole Circle Police Station, West Godavari District, registered against 2 the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Sri V.V.N.V.Teja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been suffering from cardiovascular disease. She is a female, aged about 45 years. She has not committed any offence; she was falsely implicated in this case and no antecedents under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. The seized contraband was found in the trunk of the car, where the Petitioner was travelling with other Accused and urged to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the health condition of the Petitioner is stable, she doesn’t require even any medication, the jail department can provide required treatment the Petitioner is in need. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted medical certificate issued by the prison authorities vide medical certificate dated 30.10.2025. So far only 11 witnesses are examined, and the investigation is at progressive stage. It is also submitted that Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely applicable to the case. 5. On perusal of the record, it is the allegation of the prosecution that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was travelling in the car in which 28.105 Kgs of 3 Ganja was found. There are no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the Petitioner under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. 6. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner is a habitual offender and some cases were registered for the offences punishable under ‘the I.P.C.,’ for commission of theft of valuable property. Petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2025. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 91 days. 7. On perusal of the record, as per the mediator’s report, Section 29 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is squarely applicable to the case on hand. On perusal of the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Special Prison for Women, Rajamahendravaram dated 30.10.2025, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the cardiovascular system of the Petitioner is normal size S1 S2 and no added sound and the rest of the organs were functioning well, and no abnormalities were detected. It was further mentioned that the health condition of the Petitioner is normal and stable without any medications. In the medical report it was finally submitted that the prison department can provide required medical treatment to the Petitioner whenever required. 8. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has strenuously resisted the prayer for grant of bail, contending that the statutory prerequisites for grant of such relief remain unfulfilled. Upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not prima facie culpable of the alleged offence, nor is the Court satisfied that the Petitioner, if enlarged on bail, 4 would refrain from engaging in activities prejudicial to the administration of justice or the maintenance of public order. 9. 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.” 10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, and the allegation that the Petitioner was engaged in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of the Ganja and the investigation is at nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. 11. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 03.11.2025 VTS