■ V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 'VT PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2201 OF 2025 Between: Begari Sandeep Kumar @ Sandy, S/o Seenayya, A/26 yrs, D.No. 1-34/1, Maripalli Village, Regod Mandal, Medak Dist. Telangana State. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SMO, Yetapaka 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, theNHigh Court pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in connection with Crime No. 50/2023 on the file of Yetapaka Police Station, East Godavari District, pending inquiry and trial in connection with the said crime. This Petition coming on for hearing, 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 on behatFof the Respondent. The Court made the following: APHC010104982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2201/2025 Between: Begari Sandeep Kumar @ Sandy ...PETITIONEFL^ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.N VMOHANARAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Tl^ COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the B.N.S.S’) to enlarge the petitioner/AI on bail in Crime 50 of 2023 on the file of Yetapaka Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the N.D.P.S Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged contraband was not seized from the possession of the petitioner; petitioner is an innocent; he has nothing to do with the commission of offence; he is the sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide by whatever the conditions imposed by this Court and requested to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Per Contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner is the owner of the crime vehicle and also the organizer of the crime. He is involved in another similar crime vide Crime No.80 of 2022 of Medikonda Police Station; the investigation is still at primitive stage and urged to dismiss this bail application. 4. have perused the record, i he Cctse of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2023, at about 4:00 pm, the accused Nos.2 to 6 were found in possession and transportation of 150 Kgs of Ganja valued at Rs.6,00,000/-. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediators report and A3 to A7 were arrested. The N.D.P.S. Court-cum-l Additional Sessions Judge, East '' X Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram dismissed the bail application of the petitioner on 20.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2025. As seen from the record, though the contraband was not seized from the possession of the petitioner, yet it is established that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in which the commercial quantity of contraband was transported and he is the king- pin/qrganizer of the possession and illegal transportation of Ganja. Record further reveals that the petitioner was also indulged in similar offence vide Crime No.80 of 2022 registered on the file of Medikonda Police Station. The 3 petitioner has been in judicial custody for about 82 days. Section 37 of ‘the N.D.P.S. Act.,’ mandates that this Court must see whether the reasonable grounds are there to believe that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offence. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh^ wherein at para Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21, it is held as under: “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be foiiowed whiie considering the appiication 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 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 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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 offonnf,^ the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unlo.<^!^ mandatory conditions provided In SRction 37. namely (') there are reasonable grounds for believing that th^ / not guilty of such offence- and 00 that he_ is not likely to commit any offence whiles 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 the IS 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 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 corppletely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that a^iiion to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal A page •‘X in M 5 i 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 SCO 122 : (2020) 4 SCO (Cri) 147 : 2020 SCO 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 ball to the accused under the NDPS Act.” In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh, Durand Didier, this is not appropriate stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. 8. in the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd /- A VENU GOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ j. SECTION OFFICER To.X 1. The Station House Officer, Yetapaka Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri N V Mohana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies TF s-_ \ i HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2201 of 2025 X DISMISSING THE CRLP