1 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 APHC010512252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:10056& 10044 of 2025 Crl.P.No.10056 of 2025 Between: 1. PANGI KRISHNA RAO ALIAS KRISHNA, S/O.BONJIBABU, AGE 41 YEARS, C/ST KONDA KAMMARI,MAGABABU VILLAGE, KORAPALLI PANCHAYATI, G.MADUGULA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT 2. JAGGAMDORA GOPAL ALIAS GOPAL KRISHNA ALIAS KRISHNA, S/O.BALANNA, AGE 24 YEARS, C/KONDA KAMMARI,BANDHAVEEDHI, GADDARAYI VILLAGE, KUMBIDISINGI PANCHAYATIG.MADUGULA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. 3. GOLLORI MATYARAJU ALIAS GOUTHAM, S/O.DHARMARAJU, AGE 21 YEARS, C/ST MALI BURUGU VEEDHI,SINGARBA PANCHAYATI, G.MADUGULA MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Annavaram Police StationRep. by the Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra PradeshAmaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Crl.P.No.10044 of 2025 Between: KOMALI RAMAKRISHNA ALIAS GARAGA RAMAKRISHNA ALIAS BABI, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA ALIAS SATYANARAYANA, AGE 30 YEARS,C/O KAPU,Y JUNCTION, SUBBARAO PETA, RAJAHMUNDRY TOWN. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Annavaram Police StationRep. by the Public Prosecutor ,High Court of Andhra PradeshAmaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: There two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order as these two Petitions arise out of same crime but for different Accused. 2. These two Criminal Petitions have been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail in Crime No.127 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 of 2025 of Annavaram Police Station, Kakinada District, registered against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. As seen from the record, the allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are that they have indulged in possession of transportation of 133 kgs of Ganja. The quantity seized is not only a commercial quantity but also a colossal quantity. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested on 09.06.2025. They have been in the judicial custody for the past 157 days. So far, only eight witnesses were examined. Some more, material witnesses are required to be examined. Investigation is at progressive stage. Except Accused No.3, there are similar adverse criminal antecedents reported against the other accused. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the granting of bail as the petitioners have indulged in dealing with commercial quantity of Ganja. 5. Accusation against the petitioners 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 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 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 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 1(2020)12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 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.” 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh, Ram Samujh and Durand Didier, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. This Court is also opining that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the petitioners have indulged in dealing with 133 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this juncture. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed at present. 8. In the result, these two Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 13.11.2025 RSI/PRA 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.Nos.10056 &10044 of 2025 Dated 13.11.2025 38 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos:10056 & 10044 of 2025 13.11.2025 RSI/PRA