1 APHC010049052026 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: 738/2026 Between: 1. NAKKA SIVA PRASAD,, S/O. RAMANA, AGE 25 YEARS, D-NO 4-116, DRIVERS COLONY, GOKAVARAM (V) AND (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, GANGAVARAM P.S., ALLURI SEETHA RAMARAJU DISTRICT, REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, FOR THE STATE 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 him on bail in Crime. No. 78 OF 2025 dated: 23-09-2025 on the file of Gangavaram P.S., Alluri Sita Ramaraju District pending disposal of the case Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G SREE VATSAV Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 738 OF 2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in Crime.No.78 of 2025 of Gangavaram Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered against the Petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard Mr.G.Sree Vatsav, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner and other accused were found in possession of 900 kgs of ganja and the police arrested the accused and seized the said contraband. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, without any cogent evidence linking to the commission of the crime. It is further submit 3 that the petitioner is sole breadwinner of his family and he has not committed any offence. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was indulged in dealing with 900 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. 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 petitioner alleged role played in the case and also the investigation is at progressive stage, enlarging the petitioner on bail would cause serious impediment to the investigation. The petitioner had allegedly possession of 900 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 petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. 7. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded. The statutory period was not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble 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 4 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: “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 5 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 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh’s 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 committed the offence and that, if enlarged on bail, he 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: 09.02.2026 S D P 6 484 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 738 OF 2026 09.02.2026 W S D P