APHC010567432025 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 Nos: 11009 & 11011 of 2025 Crl.P.No.11009 of 2025 Between: 1.GORLI ARJUNA, WATER SERVICING CENTRE, RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 2.SINGAMPALLI DURGA PRASAD, CULTIVATION, RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Crl.P.No.11011 of 2025 Between: 1.GORLI GANGUNAIDU ALIAS CHINNA, RAVANAPALLI VILLAGE, GOLUGONDA MANDALANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 11009 and 11011 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the case is arising from same crime, but the petitioners are different. 2. The Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to enlarge the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 on bail in Crime No.208 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) (c) read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2, 6, and 7 in the above crime, are alleged to have been involved in the illegal possession and transportation of 200 kilograms of ganja, which is, undoubtedly, a commercial quantity under provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The role of the petitioners came to light based on the confession of Accused No. 2. It is further revealed that three NDPS cases i.e., Cr.No.181 of 2024 in Tangutur Police Station, Cr.No.32 of 2023 in Payakaraopeta Police Station and Cr.No.262 of 2020 in Golugonda Police Station and one IPC case 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 i.e., Cr.No.241 of 2020 of Golugonda Police Station are registered against Accused No. 2, while two NDPS cases i.e., Cr.No.122 of 2023 in Narasipatnam Rural Police Station and Cr.No. 24 of 2020 in Golugonda Police Station and one under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) case i.e., Cr.No.262 of 2020 in Golugonda Police Station are registered against Accused No. 6. However, no adverse antecedents have been reported against Accused No.7. The petitioners were arrested on 02.09.2025. They have been in judicial custody for the past 113 days only. 5. Sri A.V.Pardha Saradhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 submits that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Accused No.2 is only shown as absconding in the FIR dated 18.08.2025, without any allegation of conscious possession or transportation of contraband, while Accused Nos.6 and 7 are not even named therein. The prosecution relies solely on confessional statements of co‑accused, which are inadmissible in view of Tofan Singh v. State of T.N1 and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta2. At no point were the Petitioners found in possession of contraband, and the seizure report itself shows that the bundles contained flowers, buds and stems, not the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis, and thus do not constitute “ganja” under ‘the NDPS Act.’ 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further urged that their constitutional and statutory rights were violated by non‑furnishing of grounds 1 (2021) 4 SCC 1 2 (2022) 12 SCC 633 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 of arrest, contrary to Article 22(1), 22(5) of the Constitution, Section 47(1) of ‘the BNSS’ and Section 52(1) of ‘the NDPS Act.’ As held in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana4 and Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy v. State of A.P5 such violation entitles immediate release on bail. The petitioners were produced beyond 24 hours of arrest, vitiating the remand, and have been in custody since late August/early September 2025 though investigation is substantially complete. 7. There is also no record of proper preservation of seized material or drawing of representative samples in the presence of accused, rendering the chemical analysis unreliable. In these circumstances, the rigour of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ does not apply. The petitioners are law‑abiding citizens with fixed places of abode, engaged in lawful occupations, with no prior criminal record, no money or muscle power, and cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. It is further submitted that if they are enlarged on bail, the petitioners shall not evade from the process of law and they will abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate did not assign any specific reasons while remanding the petitioners to judicial custody, and that the grounds of arrest were not duly communicated to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no whisper about the petitioners’ involvement in the FIR, and hence, it is requested to release the petitioners on bail. 3 (2024) 8 SCC 254 4 (2025) 5 SCC 799 5 2025 SCC OnLine AP 957 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar supra, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India6, and Prabir Purkayastha supra and urged that the petitioners be enlarged on bail as no reasons were assigned for arrest and no effective legal assistance was provided to them at the initial stage. 9. Per contra, P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail, contending that the accusations against the petitioners are well-founded. The Petitioners were involved in colossal quantity of contraband. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail plea of Accused Nos.2, 6 and 7. It is submitted that Accused No.6 has three criminal antecedents and Accused No.2 has five antecedents, clearly showing their habitual involvement in similar offences. The confessional statements of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 directly implicate them in arranging and facilitating the transportation of ganja. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the arrests were duly made after credible information, and the grounds of arrest along with bail provisions were properly communicated, Accused No.6 to his uncle, Accused No.7 to his sister, and Accused No.2 to his wife. Hence, there is no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards. The petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate in compliance with law, and remand was granted after due consideration. Investigation is ongoing, and custodial interrogation is 6 (2024) 7 SCC 576 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 required to uncover the larger conspiracy and supply chain. Given the commercial quantity involved, the rigour of Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ applies. The petitioners have failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail. Their antecedents raise a strong apprehension of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding and it is urged to dismiss the bail applications. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra7, at para Nos.28, 29, 39, 40 and 56, has held as under: “28. Before we delve into analysing the provisions of law and jurisprudential developments by this Court, we find it quintessential to discuss the impact of arrest on an individual. The arrest of an individual invariably impacts not only the person arrested himself, but also the persons associated with him, i.e. family, friends, relatives, etc., affecting their psychological balance and overall social well-being. This Court has on several occasions underscored that there is a stigma attached to arrest which impairs the reputation and the standing of an individual in society. The stigma attached to arrest undermines a person’s social dignity and results into consequences that reverberate beyond the individual but also extend to their social circle. 29. The impacts of arrest are multidimensional and are not only limited to societal impact but also extend to the physical and mental health of the person. Mental health issues like depression due to custodial confinement can be aggravated by inadequate and overcrowded conditions prevalent in prisons. Such conditions severely impinge upon the fundamental rights of the arrested person and curtail his dignity and personal liberty. 39. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of the constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional circumstances, instead it reads as “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest….”, it casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023). 40. The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal. 56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 Page 49 of 52 offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 12. In this context, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relied on by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan8 wherein at paragraph Nos.20.1.4 to 20.1.7, it is held as under: “20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh23 , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 8 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there was no mention in the remand orders about service of memo of grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly template-based and not personalised (para 50); and eyewitnesses had not stated that they were present at the time of arrest or had signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India24 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 – 50) that from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written, and individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest was a violation entitling the accused to bail. 20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” 13. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Darshan supra, it has been clearly held that when the accused are well aware of the reasons for their arrest, as reflected in the arrest memo and remand report, and are legally represented before the trial court at the time of remand and while seeking bail, the alleged non-compliance of procedural formalities cannot, by itself, vitiate the remand. 14. In the instant case also, the record discloses that the petitioners were informed of the reasons for their arrest, as revealed from the arrest memo and 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 remand report. They were legally represented before the Trial Court at the time of remand as well as during the filing of the bail application. No material has been placed on record to show that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners due to the alleged non-compliance of procedural requirements. Hence, no substantial prejudice has been established. Therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not merit any consideration. 15. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh9 wherein 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.” 9 (2020) 12 SCC 122 10 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 16. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh10 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.” 17. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)11 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.” 18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh, Durand Didier, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this juncture. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court also finds prima facie substance in the allegations made against the petitioners. 19. Upon careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and after thorough perusal of the record, the allegations against the petitioners pertain to possession and transportation of 200 kilograms of ganja, which is indisputably a commercial quantity under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act.’ The gravity of the offence, its deleterious impact on society, and the legislative intent behind Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’, which imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail, cannot be lightly ignored. The rigour of Section 37 10 (1999) 9 SCC 429 11 (1990) 1 SCC 95 11 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 of ‘the NDPS Act’ is clearly attracted in the present case, and the petitioners have failed to satisfy the twin mandatory requirements therein. 20. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh supra, Ram Samujh supra, and Durand Didier supra that narcotics offences pose a continuous hazard to society, destroy innumerable lives, and warrant strict adherence to legislative mandates. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly underscored that liberal approaches to bail in NDPS cases are unwarranted, and that offenders involved in trafficking of commercial quantities are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released. In the present case, the antecedents of Accused Nos.2 and 6, who are involved in multiple prior NDPS cases, clearly demonstrate habitual engagement in similar offences, thereby raising a strong apprehension of recidivism, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses. 21. The contention of the petitioners that their arrest and remand are vitiated by alleged non- communication of grounds of arrest is devoid of merit. The record discloses that the arrest memos and remand reports reflect communication of reasons for arrest, and the petitioners were legally represented at all stages. As held in Sri Darshan supra, mere procedural lapses, absent demonstrable prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail. No material has been placed on record to establish any prejudice suffered by the petitioners. On the contrary, the petitioners were aware of the accusations and sought bail immediately thereafter, evidencing informed understanding of the grounds of arrest. 12 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 22. The reliance placed on confessional statements of co- accused, coupled with the seizure and chemical analysis confirming the contraband as cannabis, prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioners. Furthermore, the investigation is still ongoing, and custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy and supply chain. 23. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that they are not guilty of the alleged offences or that they will not commit such offences while on bail. The statutory bar under Section 37 of ‘the NDPS Act’ squarely applies. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the colossal quantity of contraband seized, the antecedents of the petitioners, and the potential threat to societal interest, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners, this Court finds no valid ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. ________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.12.2025 VTS 13 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.11009 & 11011 of 2025 Dated 24.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 11009 and 11011 of 2025 Date:24.12.2025 VTS