APHC010114152026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1743/2026 Between: 1. SHEIK MOHAMMAD TAHEER, S/O. APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.13-102, RRV PURAM, PENDURTHI,VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. ULLI RAVI TEJA, S/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.16-96, YANTHA VEEDHI,OLD GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. REGULAVALASA SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O. CHIRANJEEVI RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,R/O. F. NO.204, JISHNU ENCLAVE- 2,GOLLAVANIPALEM, 80 FEET ROAD, PENDURTHY,VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. SABBAVARAPU SUJESH GEORGE, ,S/O. M. JAYANTH RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O. F. NO.201, PRAJAHITA TOWERS, SUJATHA NAGAR,C-2 ZONE, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI ...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 enlarge the 2 Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.37/2026 of Pendurthy P.S., Visakhapatnam District Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1743/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 37 of 2026, of Pendurthy P.S., Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b), r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, the accused were found in possession of 4.6 grams of MDMA Drug powder. As such they were arrested and sent to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4. They are innocent and they have not committed any offence whatsoever as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are the sole breadwinners of their families, and their continued incarceration would cause severe hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and is ready and willing to furnish 4 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 would submit that the contraband involved in this matter is a commercial quantity of 4.6 grams of MDMA Drug powder. It is a very dangerous drug. She would further submit that there are two criminal antecedents against the Accused No.1 and on criminal case is pending against the accused No.2. She would further submit that statutory period is not complete, charge sheet is also not yet filed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case where commercial quantity of 4.6 grams of MDMA Drug powder is involved. In view of the nature and gravity of the offence, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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 petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. 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: 12.03.2026. UPS 6 264 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1743/2026 Dt.12.03.2026 UPS