APHC010393802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8035/2025 Between: 1. KALLAPALLI NAGENDRA, , S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGE 43 YEARS OCCUPATION DRIVER, VADDERA, R/O. H. NO 0-0, GONDUVOLU VILLAGE AND POST, RAVURU MANDAL, NELLORE, AP, PH. NO. 6303240535 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.137/2025 of Gandepalli P.S., now EAST GODAVARI District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BUSI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8035/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime.No.137 of 2025 of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(c) and Section 25 read with 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 16.06.2025 about 08.00 A.M, on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of Ganja, Sub- Inspector of Police, Gandepalli Police Station, along with his staff, while conducting raid at the place opposite to MPDO office, Gandepalli on NH-16 road which is running from Jaggampeta to Rajahmundry caught A1 to A3 and seized the said Ganja, vehicle and four mobile phones from the possession of A1 to A3 and child in conflict with the law under cover of mediators report. 3. Sri Srinivasa Rao Busi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to the any conditions imposed by this Court; and urged to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail submitting that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond from the clutches of law and urged to dismiss the bail application. 5. Perused the record. 6. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that he along with other accused had indulged in dealing with 110.640 KGs of Ganja. The petitioner/accused No.1 acted as driver for the vehicle in which the above mentioned quantity of ganja was allegedly transported. The contraband is a commercial quantity. The alleged offence took place on 16.06.2025 and the petitioner was arrested on the same day and he has been in judicial custody for the past 85 days. The statutory period of 180 days has not been completed. Investigation is at nascent stage and some more material witnesses are to be examined. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed the 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. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his alleged role played in the case, and the petitioner has allegedly been found in possession of 110.640 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 9. Accusation against the petitioner is well founded. Statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. 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 Others1 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 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 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.” 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 believe that the petitioner has not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence.There are no merits in this case 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, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08th October, 2025 RKS