APHC010052792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 788/2026 Between: 1. JAMPA DURGA PRASAD, S/O PRASAD, AGED 22 YEARS, D.NO. 1-13- 13/1,KONDAYYAPALEM, KAKINADA, N/R TIMMAPURAM ROAD, YSR TITKOAPARTMENT, PEDDAPURAM AADHAR7075576701 2. VANAPARTHI RAJESH, S/O RAJU, AGED 23 YEARS, D.NO. 3-2- 22/30,PADMAANABHA COLONY, YSR TITKO APARTMENT PEDAPURAM. ADHAR25689796 3636 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its public prosecutor. High Court atAmaravathi, A.P. ...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 may be pleased to grant to Regular Bail to release the petitioner/A3&A4 in connection with Cr.No.210/2025 of Kirlampudi P.S., E.G.Dt., in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VALLEPU MOUNIKA 2. VALLEPU MOUNICA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 788 of 2026 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under sections 480 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakha Sanhitha, 2023 seeking to enlarge the petitioners/A2 and A4 on regular bail in Crime No.210 of 2025 on the file of Kirlampudi Police Station of Kakinada District for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 2. None appeared for the petitioners. This is a regular bail application. Since, the petitioners herein are in jail, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter and disposed of the petition on merits. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a case of seizure of contraband i.e., 24.69 Kgs of Ganja from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that there are criminal antecedents pending against the petitioners and they have earlier involved in similar offences. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would finally submit that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 10.12.2025. The statutory period is also not completed and in the light of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petition may be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. Considering the submissions made and in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, the petitioners do not deserve for grant of regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.02.2026. DVS/JAK 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 39 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 788 of 2026 Date:10.02.2026 DVS/JAK