1 APHC010046512026 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 NOS: 689 & 693 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 689/2026 Between: 1. ESWARAN, S/O PERUMAL THEVAR,AGE 45 YRS, R/O D.NO. 17B/4, K K PATTI ROAD,CUMBUM VILLAGE, UTHAMAPALAYAM SUB- DISTRICT,KAMBAM MANDAL, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. BASKARAN KASINATHAN, S/O KASINATHAN, AGE 40 YEARS,R/O KOLLAMPALAYAM VILLAGE. ERODE DISTRICT,TAMILNADU STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT BUILDINGS,HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.THROUGH S.H.O., PROH. EXCISE P.SRAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-NORTH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SINGURU SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 693/2026 Between: 1. THOYA GOVINDA REDDY, S/O. CHINNABBAI, AGE 33 YEARS,R/O BACCHALURU VILLAGE, BODDAGANDI TALUKA,MANGAMPADU,EAST GODAVARI DIST,PRESENTLY R/O BACCHALURU VILLAGE,Y RAMAVARAM MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.THROUGH S.H.O., PROH. EXCISE P.S.RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-NORTH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SINGURU SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 689 & 693 OF 2026 ORDER:- The Criminal Petition Nos.689 & 693 of 2026 have 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 & 6 and petitioner/accused No.3 respectively on bail in Crime.No.246 of 2025 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram-North, registered against the Petitioners 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. These two Criminal Petition Nos.689 and 693 of 2026 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the petitioners in these two petitions are accused in the same crime. 3. Heard Mr.Sai Krishna Singuru, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State. Perused the record. 4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 30.10.2025 at about 6.30 p.m., at vacant place behind Garuda Hotel which is situated on the left side of the 4 service road adjacent to NH 16, Katheru Village the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Rajamahendravaram North along with his staff and mediators while conducting vehicle checking, apprehended accused Nos.1 to 6 when they were transporting 33 kgs of ganja on two motor cycles and the Proh. & Excise Inspector seized the said ganja, motor cycles, mobile phones and registered the presence crime. 5. 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 that the petitioners are the 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. 6. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners were indulged in dealing with 33 kgs of ganja. The investigation is at nascent stage, inventory is not completed and urged to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the Petitioners were arrested on the spot while they were in possession of 33 kgs of ganja. The seized ganja is a commercial quantity. Of course there are no similar adverse antecedents reported against the petitioners. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail. This Court is also of the 5 view that there is no material to presume that the petitioners have not committed the offence alleged, and there is a likelihood that, if enlarged on bail, they may commit a similar offence in future. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioners were arrested on 30.10.2026. They have been in judicial custody for the past 99 days. 8. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 10. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 6 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 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. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh, 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 indulged in the commission of the alleged offence. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 7 petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Petition Nos.689 and 693 of 2026 are liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition Nos.689 and 693 of 2026 are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.02.2026 S D P 8 174 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 689 & 693 OF 2026 09.02.2026 W S D P