APHC010516932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10124/2025 Between: 1. ARI PRASANNA KUMAR ALIAS PRASANNA, S/O. SRINU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O. RAJOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh.... ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10124 of 2025 Order: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/ Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Cr.No.55 of 2023 of Chinthapalli Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 read with 8(c) of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.09.2023 at 10.00 hours, the complainant along with his staff and mediators, proceeded to Koryabayalu Junction, Chinthapalli and while conducting vehicle checking found A3 and A4 along with one juvenile in conflict in possession of 34.350 KGs of Ganja. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The other accused are absconding and the petitioner herein was arrested on 02.09.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. 3. Heard Sri G. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioner by imposing any conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 24.350 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Statutory period of 180 days is not over and inventory is also not completed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. 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 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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. 7. 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. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.01.2026 ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10124 of 2025 Date: 20.01.2026 ARB