APHC010007442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 92/2026 Between: 1. VEMULAPALLI GREESHMA, D/O.V.SRINIVASA RAO,AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC STUDENT,R/O. BALAJI TOWERS-2, NEAR VIDYAVIKAS SCHOOLTEACHERS COLONY, GUDIVADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT-521301.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BANGALORE. CAUSE TITLE OF THE PETITIONER IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 23.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.92 OF 2026. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. L SRAVANTHI NIDADAVOLE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 92 of 2026 Order: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.443 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, NTR Commissionderate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 21.12.2025 at about 20.30 hours near KK Grand Hotel, beside Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada, caught Accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of 13.34 grams of MDMA drug. Basing on their confession, the other accused were apprehended. The contraband along with other material were seized under the cover of mediators report and accused were remanded to judicial custody. 3. Heard Ms. N. L. Sravanthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that basing on the confession of co-accused, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused in the present crime. No contraband was seized from the possession of petitioner. The petitioner is innocent girl who is studying B. Tech final year in Benguluru. She would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for 3 the petitioner finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioner by imposing any conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 13.34 grams of MDMA which is a commercial quantity as per the schedule notification. The petitioner is the supplier of the drug to the other accused. Basing on the confession of accused No.4, she is arrayed as accused. Custodial interrogation of petitioner is required to know the complete facts of the case. FSL report is yet to be received. Hence, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. The Hon9ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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 aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 and if the petitioner is released on bail he would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.02.2026 ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 92 of 2026 Date: 04.02.2026 ARB