APHC010597112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11539/2025 Between: Pola Sujatha ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOURAVARAPU VENKATA LEELA SUNDARAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 by the Petitioner/Accused No.8 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.6 of 2023 of Chimakurthy SEB Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852. 1 the BNSS 2 the NDPS Act 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr. Sundaram Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and arrest would cause irreparable hardship to dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of pre-arrest bail. 4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a widow, and her husband passed away in the year 2021. She is eking out her livelihood and has two children who are dependent on her. She has also been suffering from HIV positive. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.8 in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, Ms.P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not completed. Some more material witnesses are to be examined. The source of contraband is to be traced out and established to know who the linchpin in the crime is. Investigation is still at nascent stage. Some more witnesses are to be 3 examined and some more accused are to be arrested. The Petitioner is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a supplier of ganja in the village and that she sold ganja to the other accused. She is a habitual offender. A case in Crime No.136 of 2024 of Talur Police Station was registered against her, and she is also a suspect sheeter vide Suspect Sheet No.106 and it urged to dismiss the petition. 6. As seen from the record, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were spot-arrested, and they gave a confession implicating the petitioner. The petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. The contraband involved in this case is 13 Kgs of ganja. It is not a commercial quantity but falls under intermediate quantity. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner supplied the 13 Kgs of ganja to the other accused. Accused Nos.2 and 7 were enlarged on bail. However, that cannot be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy, to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances and in fit cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a number of decisions, has categorically held that anticipatory bail should not be granted in NDPS cases. 7. The case pertains to the year 2023. The petitioner has been absconding since the date of registration of the crime. The petitioner is a habitual offender, and a suspect sheet is also maintained against her. There are adverse and similar criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. 4 8. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana3, issued directions to the accused therein to surrender before the learned Trial Court. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 4, at paragraph Nos.14 & 15, held as under: 14. Be that as it may, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order under Section 438 or 439 CrPC without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21-9-2017 [Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3801] is only to be set aside and we do so. 15. Consequently, the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court is also set aside. All the three accused in both these appeals are directed to surrender before the trial court. However, we make it clear that they are free to apply for regular bail, in which case, the Sessions Court will consider the matter on the merits of the application. Before parting with the judgment, we also painfully note that even in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there was no reference to the regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh and that too, on production of an interim order passed by the High Court. Had the same been noticed, the State would have certainly taken steps much earlier. This is once again to remind the police and the prosecutor that they need to show due diligence and vigilance while dealing with the cases under the NDPS Act.” 10. The High Court of Rajasthan in Prabhulal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan5, at paragraph No.6 held as under: “6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gujar and Mr. Suresh Pareek have vehemently contended that in view of stringent provisions of Section 37 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, petitioners are not entitled to get bail even under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and there is hardly any ground to grant them anticipatory bail in such cases. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are avoiding their arrest and there is sufficient material to establish their involvement in the crime. It was also contended that the bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. of co-accused Ram Kumar to whom the contraband articles were to be delivered, as well as the application of co-accused Bharat Singh were rejected by this Court on 15.12.94 and 15.7.94, respectively.In 1994 (3) W.L.C. ([Raj.) 622, while considering the scope of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, it was observed by me, as under:- "The object and reason behind passing the amendments was to make stringent provisions of bail as it was thought that such powers should not be used to defeat the object of the Act and a technical plea should not be a ground for under -serving liberty under the Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 37 (1) of the /Act makes is clear that the accused of an offence under the Act is to be severally dealt with and that he 3Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9540 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025. 4(2018) 13 SCC 813 51995 Supreme(Raj) 935 5 should not be allowed to be released on bail unless the conditions contained in Section 37 are satisfied. Though the Act specifically does not prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C., but the legislative intent can be gathered from Section 37 of the Act which restricts the bail even after the arrest of the offender. The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special enactment and was enacted with a view to making stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The under lying object of the Act and the stringent provisions of bail introduced by Act No. 2 of 1989 make it clear that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases unless the Court is satisfied that the investigating agency was abusing the provisions of the Act with malafide object to arrest any person. In such cases, the law should be allowed to have its own course." Section 25 of the Act provides punishment to the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act.” 11. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anarul SK v. State of West Bengal6 at para No.4 observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue and directed the State to consider as to whether it proposes to file an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the other accused. Hence, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Therefore, request for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reasonable. Furthermore, importantly grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner, against whom specific overt acts grave in nature are alleged, is neither a license for commission of serious offence nor a shield or protection for having committed grave offences, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 7 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)8. There are no merits in the petition. The Petitioner/Accused No.8 is disentitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. 6 Crl.A.No.12621 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024 7 (1980) 2 SCC 565 8 (2020) 5 SCC 1 6 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions, the request of the Petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner had not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. For the above reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:21.11.2025 KMS 7 48 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11539 of 2025 Date:21.11.2025 KMS