APHC010602922025 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: 11689/2025 Between: 1.ARJUN RATHOD @ HARI RATHOD, S/O. RATHOD RAMACHANDER, AGE 32 YEARS, D.NO 5-46, SHAIKAPUR THANDA, ZAHEERBAD, SANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA-502220. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Station House Officer, Mothugudem P.S Thorough its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SRINIVASA RAO BUSI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.1 on bail in Crime No.10 of 2022 of Mothugudem Police Station, East Godavari District, registered against the 2 Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the alleged offence was taken place on 13.02.2022 and Accused Nos.3 & 5 were arrested on the spot but the Petitioner/Accused No.1 had escaped from the scene of offence. In the course of investigation nearly after 2½ years, on 31.07.2025 Petitioner was arrested. He has been in the judicial custody for the past 113 days. It is alleged that the Petitioner had indulged in dealing with 250 Kgs of Ganja. It is a commercial quantity. In respect of other Accused investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed. As the Petitioner was absconding an absconding chargesheet was filed. All accused are relatives. With regard to the alleged role played the Petitioner the investigation is still pending. Some more crucial witnesses are yet to be examined to elicit the complexity of the Petitioner in this case. 4. Indeed, in Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 3 illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 5. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: “8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases.” 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 Durand Didier and Rajesh the request of the petitioners 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 petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.11.2025 VTS