IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2200 OF ?()9R Between: Rahul Chander Kapri, S/o Girlsh Chander Kapri, A/32, D.No.5-9-226/5, Employees Colony, Yapral, Alwal, JJNC Post, Rangareddy, Telangana. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SHO, Don karai Police Station East Godavari District, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 480 & 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^^igh Court pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in connection with Crime No. 1/2025 registered at Donkarai Police Station, East Godavari District, pending inquiry and trial. This Petition coming on for bearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N V MOHANA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent. ■'.*0 The Court made the following: on 1 APHC010104932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. CRIMINAL petition NO: ?9nn/onoc 0^ [3521] LAKSHMANA RAO Between: Rahul Chander Kapri ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.N V MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT/CuMPLAINANT IHIS COURT MADE THE FQLI nwiKir: This Criminal Petition has been Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner/A3 ORDER: filed under Sections 480 and 483 of 2023 (for brevity ‘the B.N.S.S’) to enlarge was involved in offence punishable on bail. The petitioner under Sections 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (C) of Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘ Drugs and the N.D.P.S Act’). 2. the petitioner learned Judicial Magistrate of petitioner/A3 was remanded. was arrested on 07.01.2025 and First Class, Rampachodavaram. produced before the Later the 2 The petitioner/A3 filed an application before the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Cases under ‘the N.D.P.S Act’-cum-l Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry in Crl.M.P.No.121 of 2025, but that petition was dismissed on 20.02.2025, stating that the petitioner was involved in possession and transportation of commercial quantity of liquid ganja. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. 4. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and some other accused were illegally in possession and transportation of Ganja 07.01.2025 at about 3 p.m.., at Kanakadurga temple, outskirts of Donkarai Village, Y.Ramavaram Mandal. The recovery and arrest were covered under the mediator’s report in the presence of Gazetted Officer as contemplated under the Rules. The petitioner/A3 was found in possession and on transportation of 2 kgs of liquid ganja which is worth of Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. The designated officers under Section 53 of ‘the N.D.P.S. Act,’ are police officers within meaning of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act; the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu^ held that the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of ‘the N.D.P.S. Act.,’ are “police officers’’ within meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the alleged confession statement is hit by AIR 2020 SC 5592 wr f Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. A statement recorded under Section 67 of ‘the N.D.P.S. Act.,’ cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial against the petitioner; petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.01.2025 and there is no likelihood of an early trial; prolonged detention of the petitioner in the remand without trial violates fundamental of personal liberty; bail is Rule jail is an exception. So the petitioner is entitled for presumption of innocence till the guilt is proved; relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand^ to the effect that unless there are compelling reasons, bail Should be granted; petitioner is ready to produce sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of this Court and he undertakes to appear before the Court concerned on each and every adjournment; material portion of the investigation is completed. 7 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that it was established that the petitioner was indulged in possession and transportation of caqimercial quantity of Ganja, which is in liquid form; A2 is not yet arrested; material portion of the investigation is not completed and urged to dismiss the bail application. 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner was indulged in possession and transportation of the commercial quantity of liquid ganja. Therefore Section 37 of ‘the N.D.P.S. Act.,’ will come into operation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail. 2 (1977) 4 see 30^ 4 On perusal of the entire record, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty for the offence for which he arrested. The petitioner has been in jail for the past 83 days only. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble 9. was 10. Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh^ at para Nos.18, 19, 20 and 21, it is 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 i/. 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. ’ 5 (2020) 12 SCC 122 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences undor the MBPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37. namely. 0) .there are reasonable grounds for believing that the not guilty of such offence: and accused is (II) tf^t he IS not likely to commit any offence while on hail are The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release the respondent-accused holistic view of the harmful health hazards which would of on bail. Instead of attempting to take a socio-economic consequences and . , accompany trafficking illegally in °_^ll9erous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended. ’’ ]o'o of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 147 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 I at page 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 iyection 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 ODoortunitv to ^nd the second is that the court mu^f satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. This extract is taken from State of Kerala u. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 147 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 81 I 20: the expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable c^ses 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 overlooked 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. /». X is not at page 6 TMs extract is taken from State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) 12 srr 122 ; r2a20J 4 SCC (Cri) 147 ; 2020 SCC oLne SC SI at page 21. We may further like to observe that the learned ^ mandated under Section NDPS Act which is a sine under the NDPS Act. ” Single Judge ' 37 of the qua non for granting bail to the accused 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh, Durand Didier, the request of the petitioner this juncture since there cannot be considered at are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. The contentions of the leaned counsel for the petitioner cannot be this juncture. The learned Court below dismissed appreciated at bail application on 20.02.2^25. There are no circumstances changed from that date to the date < ’■ y K of filing of this application. 12. For above reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd /- A VENU GOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC^ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The Station House Officer, Dohkarai Police Station, East Godavari District.' 2. One CC to Sri N V Mohana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] ^ [OUT]^^^ Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4., Three CD Copies TF T HIGH COURT \ DATED;01/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2200 of 2025 ,*o DISMISSING THE CRLP