APHC010115462026 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: 1774/2026 Between: 1. PANGI VENKATA RAO, S/O BANGM, AGED 50 YEARS,R/O BODDAPUTTU VILLAGE KUDUMUSARI PANCHAYAT,CHINTAPALLI DISTRICT, ASR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. VANTALA RANGA RAO, S/O CHINNAYYA, AGED 25 YEARS,R/O KILUMULU VILLAGE KUDUMUSARI PANCHAYAT,CHINTAPALLI DISTRICT, ASR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT 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 pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 & 5 on bail in Crime No. 36 of 2025, On the file of the G. Madugula Police Station and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1774/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 5, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 36 of 2025, on the file of the G. Madugula Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Sri Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakhmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 05.09.2025, the Accused Nos. 3 to 5 were found in possession of 34 Kgs of Ganja while they were transporting the same. As such, they were caught hold and ganja was seized from them under the cover of mediator’s report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 and 5. The Accused No.5 was arrested on 05.09.2025 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The Accused No.2 was arrayed as accused basing on the confession of the co-accused. Accused No.2 was arrested on 08.09.2025 and since then, he has been in judicial custody. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients constituting the 4 alleged offences are wholly absent as against the petitioner. No contraband has been seized from the possession of the petitioner No.1/Accused No.2. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners are the sole breadwinner 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 adequate sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. He would further submit that statutory period is also completed. 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 huge commercial quantity of 34 Kgs of Ganja. Though, the statutory period is completed in this matter, the Investigating Agency has filed an application seeking extension of time to complete investigation and that is pending for consideration before the Court. 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 huge commercial quantity of Ganja is involved, the investigating agency filed an application seeking extension of time to complete the investigation, which is pending before the Special Court, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. 5 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 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 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 7 251 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1774/2026 Dt.12.03.2026 UPS