APHC010534672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10389 Between: 1. BIYYALA APPALA NAIDU, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. BELLA BHUPALA PATNAM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No Sullurpet Police Station, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10389 OF 2025 BIYYALA APPALA NAIDU, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. BELLA BHUPALA PATNAM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Sullurpet Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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’ etitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No. Station, Tirupati District, registered against the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO BIYYALA APPALA NAIDU, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. BELLA BHUPALA PATNAM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Sullurpet Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS’), seeking to Crime No.73 of 2023 of against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 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. 3. As seen from the record, the allegation against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 is that he loaded and supplied 240 Kgs of ganja. It is a commercial quantity and also colossal quantity. The Petitioner was arrested on 15.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 62 days. There is one similar adverse criminal antecedent reported against the Petitioner. So far only 7 witnesses are examined. Investigation is at nascent stage. Some more material witnesses have to be examined. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner on the ground that he was involved in commercial quantity. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others”1 at 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 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 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.” 4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.10.2025. KK