1 APHC010025192026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 372/2026 Between: 1. PITAMBAR NAG, S/O. LATE KANGRESS NAG, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. UCCHALA VILLAGE, KALAHANDI DISTRICT,ODISHA STATE. 2. CHANDRA KARUAN, S/O. PRASANNA KARUAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O. BIRAMAL VILLAGE, MAHICHALAPOST, KALAHANDI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE 3. PRADIP NAIK, S/O. KSHITI NAIK CHITTI RAMANAIH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,R/O. CHAR BAHAI VILLAGE, KALAHANDI DISTRICT,ODISHA STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.257/2025 of I Town P.S., Vizianagaram District and to pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KOLLI USHA KIRANMAYEE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 372 OF 2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 8the Cr.P.C.9)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity 8the BNSS9), seeking to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail in Crime.No.257 of 2025 of I-Town Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the Petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 8the NDPS Act9). 2. Heard Ms.Kolli Usha Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners and other accused were found in possession of 30 kgs of ganja and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is further submit 4 that the petitioners are sole breadwinners of their families and they have not committed any offence. The petitioners undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioners. 5. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners were indulged in dealing with 30 kgs of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage, inventory is not completed and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioners alleged role played in the case, enlarging the petitioners on bail would cause serious impediment to the trial. The petitioners had allegedly transporting 30 kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed grant of bail. This Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are not guilty of such offence and that they are not likely to commit offence while on bail. 7. Though statutory period is completed, but the accusation against the petitioners is well founded. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others(2020)12 SCC 122 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: 5 “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 6 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.= 8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Rajesh9s case, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture, inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not committed the offence and that, if enlarged on bail, they would not commit a similar offence in the future. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 28.01.2026 S D P 7 305 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 372 OF 2026 28.01.2026 W S D P