APHC010018822026 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: 300/2026 Between: 1. BIYYALA APPALA NAIDU,, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS,R/O. BELLA BHUPALA PATNAM VILLAGE,VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO, Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh At 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 Courtpleased to grant A.1 bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit directing his enlargement in Crime No. 73 of 2023 of of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.300 of 2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.73 of 2023 of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence based on the confession of Accused No.3. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner and it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the investigation is at crucial stage, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. As seen from the record, this is third bail application. This Court, in Crl.P.No.10389 of 2025, dated 17.10.2025, dismissed the first bail application and in Crl.P.No.12272 of 2025, dated 05.01.2026, dismissed the second bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer. 3 5. The petitioner was arrested on the execution of a P.T. warrant on 25.08.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied 240 kgs of ganja. Even though Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 10 were released on regular bail, that itself is not a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail, inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner are severe and grave in nature when compared to the allegations against the accused who were enlarged on bail. The petitioner was also arrested in connection with Crime No.45 of 2018 on 15.08.2025. The present crime was registered under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. 6. The Hon’ble 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 case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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: 300 of 2026 Dt. 04.02.2026 ARB