1 APHC010081762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1250/2026 Between: 1. PARITI VENKATA JAGADISH KUMAR, S/O KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO. PCWA 3-174, 3RD LINE,PASUPUTHOTA, MADHURANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,AT PRESENT LODGED IN NELLORE CENTRAL PRISON ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI,THROUGH MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DIST, 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 pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.443 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, on such stringent terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, including strict reporting conditions, surrender of passport, and furnishing of local sureties or any other condition, including technological monitoring, if so required, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. AMARAVATI LAW CHAMBERS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1250/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.443 of 2025 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Sri P.T.Reddy, learned counsel representing Amaravati Law Chambers for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2025 at about 8:30 PM, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended near KK Grand Hotel, on the street situated beside Sentini Hospital, when they attempted to flee on noticing the police arriving in a Rakshak vehicle. Upon enquiry, they confessed that they were in possession of MDMA purchased from Accused No.4 and that cocaine supplied by Accused No.5 was to be delivered to Accused No.3. Upon verification, the police found four small packets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be MDMA weighing 5.5 grams and four packets found in the bag of Accused No.2 weighing 7.84 grams. Thereupon, 4 Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and the said contraband was seized under the cover of a mediators’ report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and that he has no connection whatsoever with the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2025. He would further submit that the accused No.5 in this case was already released on bail by the Trial Court. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued incarceration would cause severe hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and is ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. He finally prays to allow the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is of commercial quantity and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2025. It is further submitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were caught red- handed while they were in possession of a commercial quantity of white crystalline meth. She would further contend that the investigation is still pending. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition, in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case where commercial quantity of MDMA is involved 5 and the investigation is still pending. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 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 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 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: 24.02.2026. UPS 7 238 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1250/2026 Dt.24.02.2026 UPS