APHC010445212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8873/2025 Between: 1. BHUKYA DEVENDAR, S/O RAMACHANDRU, AGED 33, CHANDRATHANDA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, VARDHANNAPETA MANDAL, WARANGAL DISTRICT, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by SHO, Rampachodavaram Police Station East Godavari District, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...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 Court pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.6 in connection with Crime No. 69/2025 registered at Rampachodavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, dated 27-06-2025, pending inquiry and trial Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N V MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8873/2025 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.6 on bail in Crime.No.69 of 2025 of Rampachodavaram Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity „the NDPS Act‟) and Section 111(1)(b) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 27.06.2025 about 04.00 P.M, on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of Ganja, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Police Station, along with his staff, while conducting raid at Pandirimamidi Center on Tar Road (Rampachodavaram-Gokavaram Road) found one Bolero pickup van bearing registration No.OD 02 AV 6602, one motorcycle NS-200 bearing registration No.AP 39 G 0027 and on seeing the police the drivers of the said vehicles absconded into forest hill area leaving their vehicles. On verification of the said vehicles, the police found 1142 KGs of Ganja and seized the said contraband and vehicles under cover of mediator‟s report. During the course of investigation, petitioner/Accused No.6 was arrested on 08.07.2025. 3. Sri N.V.Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended 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 petitioner/accused No.6 acted as driver of a vehicle in which 1142 KGs of ganja was transported. The petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2025 and he has been in judicial custody for the past 89 days. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of arrest. He relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana1 wherein at Para Nos.11 & 21, it is held as under: “11. The view taken in the case of Pankaj Bansal was reiterated by this Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha2. In paragraphs nos. 28 and 29, this Court held thus: 1 2025 SCC Online SC 456 “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” 21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on decision of the High Court of Gouhati in Sakib Choudhury v. State of Assam2 wherein at Para Nos.27 & 28, it is held as under: “27. In the instant case except the fact that the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, the prosecution side has not been able to show anything to satisfy this Court that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner in this case Page No.# 8/11 were communicated to him. As already discussed here in above, the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 served on the present petitioner only contains the information regarding his arrest in connection with Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 14/2025 and the penal provisions involved in the case. Nothing else has been mentioned in the said notice. 28. The Apex Court, in the case of Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another (Supra), has categorically held that mere information about an arrest is distinct from the communication of the grounds for such arrest. Simply informing an individual of his arrest does not fulfill the constitutional and statutory requirement of providing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee.” 9. However, in a decision relied on by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para Nos.20.1.4 and 20.1.5, held as under: “20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 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 Pradesh, 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. 2 2025 SCC Online SC 269 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 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.” 10. In fact, on 08.07.2025, the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Circle has served a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS informing the petitioner that he was arrested in relation to illegal transportation of Ganja in connection with crime No.69 of 2025 registered for alleged offence under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of „the NDPS Act,‟ of Rampachodavaram Police Station. The relative of the petitioner was also served a notice of similar in nature under Section 48 of „the BNSS‟. Though notice dated 08.07.2025 is titled as “Section 47 BNSS arrest intimation” consisting of grounds of arrest in it, the above notice clearly mentioned that petitioner was arrested in connection with transportation of Ganja in Crime No.69 of 2025. 11. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sri Darshan supra while referring to the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vihan Kumar and Kasireddy Upender Reddy supra observed that requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest, grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. It was also further observed that both the decisions viz., vihan kumar and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, which are based on decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India5 clarifed that written, individualized grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. It was also further observed that consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when 4 2025 INSC 768 5 (2024) 7 SCC 576 examining alleged procedural lapses. Saying so, it was further mentioned that 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. 12. Coming to the instant case, it is not that no ground of arrest was communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner was informed that he was arrested in connection with illegal transportation of Ganja in Crime No.69 of 2025 of Rampachodavaram Police Station. No prejudice is shown or established much less a substantial prejudice caused to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was denied of a fair opportunity to effectively defend. The petitioner was involved in transportation of colossal quantity of ganja of 1142 KGs. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. This Court also is of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or that he is not likely to commit any offence if he is enlarged on bail. 14. 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 Others6 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. 6(2020)12 SCC 122 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 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.” 15. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh and Durand Didier, the contention of the petitioner that no ground of arrest was informed to him after he was arrested is unsustainable.There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. 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: October, 2025 RKS