APHC010526712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Between: 1. SAMARIDI ARJUN, S/O. NITHYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O. DONNALAVALASA VILLAGE, ANANTHAGIRIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. 2. DUMBARI SWAMY, S/O. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.38, BALLI MAMIDI ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL,ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. 3. DUMBARI JOYO, S/O. LACHANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O. SEELAM GONDI VILLAGE, POTHANGI,DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 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 Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.412/2025 of Pendurthy P.S., Visakhapatnam District and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. ADAPA SUDHAKAR RAO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10273/2025 SAMARIDI ARJUN, S/O. NITHYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O. DONNALAVALASA VILLAGE, ANANTHAGIRIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. DUMBARI SWAMY, S/O. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.38, BALLI MAMIDI VILLAGE,PYNAMPADU PANCHAYAT, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL,ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. DUMBARI JOYO, S/O. LACHANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O. SEELAM GONDI VILLAGE, POTHANGI,DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...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 Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.412/2025 of Pendurthy P.S., Visakhapatnam District and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): DAPA SUDHAKAR RAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA SAMARIDI ARJUN, S/O. NITHYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O. DONNALAVALASA VILLAGE, ANANTHAGIRIMANDAL, ALLURI DUMBARI SWAMY, S/O. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/O. VILLAGE,PYNAMPADU PANCHAYAT, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL,ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P. DUMBARI JOYO, S/O. LACHANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,R/O. SEELAM GONDI VILLAGE, POTHANGI,DUMBRIGUDA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.412/2025 2 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:10273/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner herein/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.412 of 2025 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2025, at about 16:30 hours, at Saripalli Police Check Post, Saripalli, Pendurthy, the Sub- Inspector of Police, along with his staff and mediators, was conducting vehicle checking. During the checking, three persons riding on two motorcycles, coming from the Kothavalasa side, were intercepted. Upon search, 2 kilograms of liquid ganja was found in their possession. The Sub-Inspector of Police, with the assistance of his staff, apprehended Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and seized 2 kilograms of ganja from their possession under the cover of a mediator’s report. Hence, the report. 3. No representation on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. 4 4. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 2 kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Inventory is also not completed. The Statutory period of 180 days is not completed. She further submits that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Charge-sheet is not yet filed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh 1 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of regular bail at this stage. 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: 11.02.2026 KKV 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 174 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10273/2025 Dt.11.02.2026 KKV