APHC010526662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10268/2025 Between: SREEJITH ALIAS RAM, S/O. LATE SIVA RAMAN T.M., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARSR/O. MUNDAPPULLY VEEDU, JANASAKTHI ROAD,KATTOOR CITY, KATTOOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,KERALA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10268 of 2025 Dated 07.01.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under 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 Crime No.227 of 2024 of S.Kota Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He was falsely implicated in this case. He is a law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence. He has got fixed abode. He would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per Contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that accusation against the petitioner is well-founded as the Charge Sheet has already been filed, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, the alleged offence took place on 19.12.2024. The role of the petitioner has come to light based on the confession of accused Nos.2 and 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner instructed accused Nos.2 and 3 by providing a vehicle for the transportation of 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10268 of 2025 Dated 07.01.2026 117 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. There are no adverse similar criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Thrissur District, Kerala State. He has got fixed abode. The police, after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet on 23.09.2025, and the accusation is well-founded. The petitioner was arrested on 01.08.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 159 days only. The request for grant of bail to the petitioner at this juncture is not found convincing or reasonable. 6. Further, statutory period of judicial remand for 180 days is not completed. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “In murder cases the harm is limited to one or two individuals, whereas narcotics offences destroy numerous vulnerable lives and have a deadly impact on society; offenders involved in drug trafficking pose a continuous hazard and are likely to persist in their illicit activities if released, and therefore strict adherence to the legislative mandate is essential.” 8. In Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)2 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.24 held as under: “The organised underworld activities and clandestine trafficking of narcotic drugs have caused widespread addiction, especially among adolescents and students, turning the menace into a serious and alarming social problem. To combat this devastating threat with its deadly impact on society, Parliament recognised the need for strong measures. 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10268 of 2025 Dated 07.01.2026 Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh3 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. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh supra, 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 he is enlarged on bail he would not commit similar offence in 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.10268 of 2025 Dated 07.01.2026 future. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 07.01.2026 PRA