APHC010069542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1064/2026 Between: 1. SONTENA ANANDA PREM KUMAR,, S/O. PUNYA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC HALTING DRIVER, R/O. SUJATHA NAGAR, CHINAMUSHIDIWADA , PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATI. THROUGH THE SHO, G.MADUGULA PS, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...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 Petitioner/A-2 on bail in connection with Crime No. 49 of 2025 on the file of the G. Madugula Police Station, A.S.R. District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. AMARENDRA JILLELLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1064/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.49/2025 of G.Madugula Police Station, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 05.12.2025, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 along with two other accused and one child in conflict with law were caught red-handed when they were transporting 80 Kgs of Ganja by a Vertiga Car bearing Temporary Registration No.T1125AP5605CK. Basing on which, a case in Crime No.49/2025 of G.Madugula Police Station, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amarendra Jillella, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the etitioner/Accused No. 2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The Petitioner is a part-time driver, working merely as a halting driver on a daily wage basis. He had no knowledge whatsoever of the 3 alleged contraband said to have been recovered. It is further submitted that, except for the alleged confession, there is absolutely no independent or corroborative material connecting the Petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. The entire case of the prosecution, insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned, rests upon a weak and unsubstantiated version which does not make out a prima facie case under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his entire family is dependent upon his earnings for their livelihood. He has no criminal antecedents. The Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.12.2025. He finally submits that the Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court, in the event he is enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the contraband involved in the present crime is 80 kilograms of ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and that the inventory has not yet been completed as the investigation is still pending. It is contended that at the time of seizure, the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was present in the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered. It is further submitted that, apart from the confession statement, the prosecution has collected Call Detail Records (CDRs), and based on the said CDRs, it is contended that the Petitioner is not a temporary or halting driver as claimed, but was in regular contact with the other accused, thereby corroborating his involvement in the alleged offence. 4 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the contraband seized is 80 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The material would further show that the Petitioner/Accused No.2 was present in the vehicle at the time of seizure and that the investigation is still pending. Apart from the confession statement, the prosecution has relied upon the Call Detail Records (CDRs), which prima facie show regular contact between the Petitioner and the other accused, thereby disputing his claim that he was only a temporary driver with no knowledge of the contraband. Having regard to the quantity involved and the stage of investigation, this Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner is entitled to bail at this stage. 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid 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. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.02.2026. UPS 6 147 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1064/2026 Dt.19.02.2026 UPS