APHC010041042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 603/2026 Between: 1. TANGI HARSHAVARDHAN NAIDU ALIAS THANGI, S/O MURALI MOHANA RAO AGED 22 YRS, B. TECH STUDENT PLOT NO. 108, BANKERS COLONY NEAR SHIVA BALAJI TEMPLE SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Through the S.H.O., of IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam Rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No: 603 of 2026 ORDER : The Criminal Petition under Sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking regular bail in Crime No.235 of 2025 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.11.2025, between 16:30 hours and 18:00 hours, the complainant–Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, upon receiving credible information from the City Task Force staff regarding illegal transportation of LSD blots near Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam, proceeded to the spot along with his staff and mediators. Near the road opposite Sai Baba Temple, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam City, they apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were found in possession of 48 LSD blots. On enquiry, the accused allegedly revealed that they are friends and habituated to consuming liquor, ganja, and drugs. They further stated that they had contacted Accused No.4, a resident of Bengaluru and friend of Accused No.3, and procured the 48 LSD blots from him. The contraband, along with vehicles and other material objects, was seized under the cover of a mediators’ report, and the accused were remanded to judicial custody. 3 3. Heard Sri K. P. S. Sailesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State/Respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no material to establish that the petitioners paid any amount to Accused No.3 for purchasing the contraband. The alleged monetary transactions are not supported by authenticated bank statements. No contraband was recovered directly from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young student pursuing B. Tech Final year. Earlier, interim bail was granted by the Special Court considering his academic career. During the period of interim bail, the petitioner strictly complied with all bail conditions and voluntarily surrendered before the Court without any default, which demonstrates his bona fide conduct. The investigation is stated to be completed, and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.11.2025; however, no charge sheet has been filed till date. Hence, he prays that the petition be allowed. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the quantity of contraband seized is commercial in nature. The investigation is still in progress. She further submits that statutory period is not over. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4 6. A perusal of material on record goes to show that, police seized 48 LSD Blots from the possession of petitioner herein and two others in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators’ report. The seized quantity would amount to commercial quantity. As per material on record, the petitioner is pursuing B. Tech and involved in purchasing and consuming drugs. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that investigation is in progress. 7. 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. 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 8. In view of the 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. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.02.2026 ARB 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 603 of 2026 09.02.2026 ARB