APHC010243352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3824/2026 Between: 1. PANGI DHARAMRAJU, S/O KOMAYYA, AGED 23 YEARS,LUO YALLAVARAM VILLAGE, VANCHULA PANCHAYATI,G.K. VEEDHI MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMARAJU 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 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3824/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 264 of 2025, on the file of Kasimkota Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c), 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”). 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.10.2025, the petitioner and five other accused were caught red handed while they were possessing and transporting 70 Kgs of ganja by auto rickshaw. 3. Heard Sri Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the accused No.3. The petitioner is innocent and is no way concerned with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 31.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, though, statutory period is already over, no report has been filed before the Special Court till date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 3 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though, the statutory period has been completed in this matter, the prosecution has filed a petition seeking extension of time of judicial remand vide Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2025 on 01.05.2026 on the file of the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle and the same is pending before the Court. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending. He finally submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, since the investigation is still pending and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that a remand extension petition has been filed before the Special Court by the prosecution and the same is pending. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.3 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 4 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: 04.05.2026. UPS 5 81 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3824/2026 Dt.04.05.2026 UPS