APHC010154822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2371/2026 Between: 1. SAMARDHI VENU GOPAL,, S/O GURU, AGE 26 YEARS, BOSUBEDA VILLAGE, ARAKU VALLEY MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature 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 may be pleased to release the petitioner/Accused -07 on bail in Cr. No. 79 of 2024 of Ananthagiri Police Station, Alluri Seetha Raju District, Under Section lll(2)(b) of BNSS 2023 and 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) 8i 25of N.D.P.S Act, 1985 dated 22-11- 2024 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2371 of 2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.7, seeking regular bail, in Cr. No. 79 of 2024 of Ananthagiri Police Station, Alluri Seetha Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, at, on 22.11.2024 at 6.00 pm, on receipt of credible information, regarding illegal possession and transportation of ganja, the S.I of Police, along with staff and mediators conducted vehicle checking in front of police station of Ananthagiri. They observed two swift cars bearing registration nos.TN 91 D 8708 and TN 05 CM 5169 crossed them with high speed and stopped the cars at some distance. The inmates in the car got down from the cars and tried to escape. Then police apprehended six persons while the other five persons escaped from there. On enquiry, said six persons disclosed their identity particulars as that of A4 to A6, A8, A9 and A11 and police found 100 kgs of ganja in their possession. They confessed the involvement of other accused i.e. A1 to A3, A7 and A10 in the commission of the offence. Police arrested A4 to A6, A8, 3 A9 and A11 and remanded them to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, police arrested the petitioner on 04.10.2025. 3. Heard Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this crime and that he is in no way connected with the commission of the offence. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.10.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7 in this case, basing on the confession statement of the co- accused. Except the alleged confession statement, no other incriminating material is there against the petitioner. No contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025, in Crl.P.No.2809 of 2025, enlarged accused No.2 in the present crime on bail. He would further submit that the petitioner is also on the same footing as of the accused No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that investigation against the petitioner is still pending and the statutory period has not yet been 4 completed. It is further submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is 100 kilograms, which constitutes a huge commercial quantity. She contended that the petitioner cannot seek parity with accused No. 2, as, apart from the confession statement, call data records collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicate that there are conversations between the A-7 and A-2, which shows the involvement of the petitioner. She finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is a case involving 100 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of investigation, call data records were collected, which shows the involvement of the petitioner. 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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 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: 06.04.2026. UPS 6 35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2371/2026 Dt.06.04.2026 UPS