1 APHC010070522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1085/2026 Between: 1. PITTALA KUPENDRA, S/O VEMANNA,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O H NO 9-22, GOWRIDEVUNIPALLI VILLAGE,KANDU POST, ADDAKAL MANDAL,MAHABUBNAGAR, TELENGANA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Proh. Excise Inspector,Proh. Excise Station,Paderu Police StationRep.by public prosecutorHigh Court, Amaravathi ...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 Courtpleased to release the petitioner/AI on bail pending enquiry in FIR No.194/2025, Dt: 23-08-2025 on the file of the Proh. & Excise lnspector,Proh. & Excise Station,Paderu Police Station Alluri Sita Rama Raju District, Andhra Pradeshand pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1085 /2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.194/2025, dated 23-08-2025 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station, Paderu, Sita Rama Raju District, Andhra Pradesh, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 read with 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, 8the NDPS Act9). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.08.2025, upon receipt of credible information, the Inspector of Prohibition and Excise conducted vehicle checking at Guthulaput Santhabayalu Village of Paderu Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. During the said checking, the accused No.1 along with other accused were found in possession of and transporting 35 kilograms of ganja. The contraband was seized from their possession under a panchanama in the presence of mediators, and the accused were arrested. A case was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 read with 8(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Sri T.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2025, since then, he has been in judicial custody. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioner by imposing any conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 35 kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Inventory is also not completed. The Statutory period of 180 days is not over. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act. 6. The Hon9ble 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 4 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of regular bail at this stage. 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: 18.02.2026 KKV 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 37 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1085/2026 Dt.18.01.2026 KKV