APHC010543442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10597/2025 Between: 1. KOKKIRIGADDA VEERA VENKAT GANGA SHIVA SHANKAR, S/O. VEER VENKATA SATYA DURGA PRASAD RAO, AGE 25 YEARS, R/O. 3RD STREET, MALLAYYAPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AtAmaravatl. ...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 Courtpleased to release the Petitioner/Accused No.3on bail pending investigation, inquiry and trial in Cr.No. 144/2021 of Narsipatnam Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION N6: 10597 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.144 of 2021 of Narsipatnam Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 29.11.2021 at 09.00 hours, at Nagaram Village outskirts of Narsipatnam Mandal while conducting vehicle checking, caught A1 and A2 in possession of 86 KGS of Ganja. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediators report and accused were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner herein is accused No.3. 3. Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that basing on the confession of A1 and A2, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3 in the present case. No contraband was seized from the possession of petitioner. The petitioner was produced before the Court on execution of PT warrant on 02.09.2025. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioners by imposing any conditions. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the case is pending for want of RFSL report. She further submit that investigating agency can gather other information apart from the confession statement of the co- accused. CDRs in the present case are yet to be retrieved. She further submits that statutory period is not over and inventory is 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 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. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 4 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 applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 29.01.2026. ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10597 of 2025 Dt.29.01.2026 ARB