APHC010117002026 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: 1792/2026 Between: 1. SUDHAKAR DAS, S/O. BRAJANAND DAS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARSR/O. KELASHI VILLAGE, TIADISAHI POST,BARSAR, BHADRAK, ODISHA. 2. PINKI DEVI, W/O. UPENDRA KUMAR RAM, AGED 30 YEARSR/O. CHANDO VILLAGE, CHAINPUR TALUK,PALAMU DISTRICT, JHARKHAND. 3. SHIBA DAS, S/O. BEERABADRA DAS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,R/O. KELASAHI VILLAGE, TIADISAHI POST,BARSAR PANCHAYATI, BHADRAK DISTRICT, ODISSA. 4. GOPABANDHU DAS ALIAS GOPAL, S/O. AJAY DAS, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O. KELASAHI VILLAGE, TIADISAHI POST,BARSAR PANCHAYATI, BHADRAK DISTRICT, ODISSA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT 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 enlarge the petitioners herein on 2 regular bail in Cr. No. 37 of 2026, of Naidupet Urban Police Station, Tirupati District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1792/2026 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 to 5, seeking regular bail, in Cr.No.37 of 2026, of Naidupet Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, 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, this is a case of "illegal possession and transportation of Ganja" that occurred on 04.02.2026 morning at 06.30 hours on the northern side fields to Menakur byepass road, Naidupet mandal and on the same day at 9.00 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, Naidupet UPS, received credible information about possession and transportation of Ganja. Immediately the Sub Inspector of Police secured the Tahsildar and mediators rushed to the place nabbed the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 interrogated them got searched them in the presence of Tahsildar and seized 23 Kgs of Ganja worth Rs.2,76,000/- and 6 phones from their possession under the cover of Mahazarnama and A1 to A5 were arrested on 04.02.2026 4 and produced before the JMFC, Naidupet. Since then the accused No.1 to 5 have been in judicial custody. Basing on the mahazarnama a case was registered in Crime No.37/2026 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act, 1985.. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to 5. The petitioners are innocent and they never committed any offence and they are falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners were in judicial custody since 04.02.2026. 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 23 Kgs of Ganja. Investigation is still pending and statutory period is also not yet completed. 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 5 involved, investigation is still pending, 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 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 6 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 7 253 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1792/2026 Dt.12.03.2026 UPS