APHC010560752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10877/2025 Between: DIPANKAR HALDAR, S/O. PIJUSH HAIDAR ALIAS PEEJUSH HAIDAR,MPV 74 VILLAGE, KAIIMELA, MALKANGIRI DISTRICT ODISHA STATE. AADHAR NO. 684294444332 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10877 of 2025 Dated 21.11.2025 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.2 on bail in Crime No.8 of 2023 of Mothugudem Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 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. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has been suffering from HIV Positive. He was surrendered on 22.08.2025. He has not committed any offence. He is the sole bread winner of the family. He was falsely implicated in this case. He would abide by any conditions, if he is enlarged on bail and it is urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. On perusal of the record, this petitioner was indulged in dealing with 300 Kgs of Ganja with the aid of Accused Nos.4 to 6. Undoubtedly, it is a commercial quantity and also a colossal quantity. The alleged offence took place on 14.02.2023. In this case, so far, 7 witnesses are examined, and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. The investigation is at a nascent stage. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10877 of 2025 Dated 21.11.2025 are no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, has submitted a report that the petitioner has been suffering from HIV Positive. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to 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 or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 5. 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 300.00 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 6. 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. 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 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 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.” 8. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10877 of 2025 Dated 21.11.2025 “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.” 9. 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 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. 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 no reasonable grounds to 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10877 of 2025 Dated 21.11.2025 believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 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: 21.11.2025 RSI/PRA 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10877 of 2025 Dated 21.11.2025 35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10877 of 2025 Date: 21.11.2025 RSI/PRA