APHC010105642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1615/2026 Between: 1. PAGIDIMARI NAGENDRA ACHARY, S/O ANANTHA CHARY,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 18-351/1, SHANTHI NAGAR,MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT,TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor,High Court of at AmaravathiThrough The Special Public Prosecutor for DRI cases, Vishakhapatnam. ...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: (a) Enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.7 on Regular Bail in connection with F.No. DRI/HZU/VRU/48/ENQ-2(INT-2)/2025 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Visakhapatnam, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30 and 32-3£iK32,of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending investigation/trial, by imposing such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA 2 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. SANTHI CHANDRA(Sr.STANDING COUNSEL FOR DRI AND DGGI) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1615/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.7, seeking regular bail, in connection with F.No. DRI/HZU/VRU/48/ENQ- 2(INT-2)/2025 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30 and 32,of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution case is that, based on specific intelligence, several individuals were allegedly involved in the illicit manufacture and sale of Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, at the premises of M/s Averx Drugs Private Limited in Atchuthapuram, Anakapalli District. Acting on this information, DRI officers conducted a search in the presence of independent witnesses and seized 119.40 kg of suspected Alprazolam, along with materials and equipment used for its manufacture. The substance was valued at approximately Rs.20 lakh per kg in the illicit market. The entire operation was documented through a panchanama dated 16/17.08.2025. 3. Heard Ms. Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for DRI and DGGI and Mrs.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025. The investigation might have been completed by this time. She would further submit that the entire seizure is from the factory premises belonging to another entity and not from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the samples seized in the present case were forwarded to Custom House Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for testing and the Custom House Laboratory vide letter in F.No.NDPS/Lab/2025-26 dated 19.12.2025 forwarded the test report which confirmed the presence of NORDAZEPAM, a substance covered under NDPS Act, as a predominant component in all nine samples. The contraband involved in the present case is 207.2 Kgs of Nordazepam (119.40 Kgs of initially believed to be Alprazolam and 87.80 Kgs of intermediates), which is a commercial quantity. She would further submit that charge sheet is also filed in this matter after due investigation and the same was numbered as NSC.No. 88 of 2026 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam on 10.02.2026 i.e., within the statutory period. The contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 207.2 Kgs of Nordazepam (119.40 Kgs of initially believed to be Alprazolam and 87.80 Kgs of intermediates), which is a commercial quantity. 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 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. 9. 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: 10.03.2026. UPS 7 259 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1615/2026 Dt.10.03.2026 UPS