APHC010534152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10570/2025 Between: SHAIK MOHAMMED JAKEER, S/O. VALI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.26-39-52, A.T. AGRAHARAM, 10TH LANE, SRIRAM NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: PULAPALLI BABJI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 The Court made the following: 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 Petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.298 of 2025 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 106(1), 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Mr.G Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel, representing Sri Pulapalli Babji, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has not committed any offence. He is law-abiding citizen. He has got fixed abode. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose while granting bail to the Petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 125 days. The petitioner is of an impressionable age of 19 years. Hence, it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that all the accused, including the petitioner, entertained the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 common intention to have possession and transportation of commercial quantity of ganja in a car. While doing so, they hit a child with their car and ran away from the scene of offence without stopping and without taking the child to the hospital. Later, Accused No.2 surrendered before the jurisdictional Court. However, the other accused, including the petitioner, have been absconding ever since. Later, the police, in the course of investigation, arrested the petitioner/Accused No.3. As the petitioner has been allegedly indulging in dealing with commercial quantity of ganja, the investigation is at a crucial stage and some more material witnesses are to be examined, and it is urged to dismiss the bail petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is of an impressionable age of 19 years. Yet, he has got similar adverse antecedents in Cr. No.32 of 2025 of Kodur Police Station. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 drove the car in which the seized contraband of 21.3 Kgs of ganja was transported. The car hit a child and ran away without stopping and without shifting the injured child to the hospital. The accused displayed a cruel and inhuman attitude in their hurry to escape from the eyes of the police while transporting commercial quantity of ganja. Investigation reveals that Accused Nos.1 to 5 had prior knowledge and also entertained common 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 intention for possession and transportation of commercial quantity of ganja. Accused No.2, after the incident, surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner/Accused No.3 and the other accused did not choose to do so. In the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer arrested the petitioner/Accused No.3 on 21.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 125 days. The investigation is at a crucial stage and some more material witnesses are to be examined. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. This Court is also not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the said offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in the case, and the petitioner has allegedly found in possession of 21.3 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 7. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 9. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: 8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. 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:24.12.2025 RSI 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10570 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 96 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10570 of 2025 Date: 24.12.2025 RSI