APHC010243942026 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: 3828/2026 Between: 1. SUJITH KUMAR BEHARA, S/O HARI KRISHNA BEHARA BABLU, AGED 31 YEARS,R/O KULIYANA VILLAGE, BLOCK PS, MAYURBANJ DISTRICT,STATE OF ODISHA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT 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 pleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 on bail in Crime No. 144 of 2022, On the file of the Pachipenta Police Station and pass 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: 3828/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No. 144 of 2022 of Pachipenta Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.2022 at about 15 hours near Durga Temple, near P.Konavalasa on ghat road, A1 and A2 were found in possession and transporting ganja, 6 white plastic gunny bags each containing 12 packets, 1 white plastic gunny bag containing 11 packets and on e while plastic gunny bag containing 10 packets total 93 packets weighing about 199.660 Kgs of ganja. 3. Heard Sri Dasari Ramakoteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner was arrayed as accused basing on the confession 3 statement of the co-accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.11.2025. The investigation might have been completed by this time. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and finally prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 199.660 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.11.2025. He would further submit that the statutory period is not yet completed. Investigation is still pending and the petitioner is absconding from the date of the offence i.e., 19.10.2022. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 199.660 Kgs of Ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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. 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 27 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3828/2026 Dt.04.05.2026 UPS