APHC010615982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11856/2025 Between: 1. KANTERI JALANDHAR, S/O SAHADEVAGE 30 YEARS, R/O NUVADOLIMB VILLAGE,PAPPARAMETIA PANCHAYAT, CHITRAKONDA BLOCK,MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE 2. DAMA HANTAL, S/O BHEEMANAGE 25 YEARS, R/O NUVADOLIMB VILLAGE,PAPPARAMETIA PANCHAYAT, CHITRAKONDA BLOCK,MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNCHINGIPUT P.S, VISAKHAPATNAMREP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT 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. 1 & 2 on bail in connection with Crime No.53 of 2025 of Munchingiput P.S, Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RAMINENI SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11856/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.53 of 2025 of Munchingiput P.S., Visakhapatnam, 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. None represented for the petitioners. The petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.1 and 2, who have been in judicial custody since 17.10.2025. Since this is a regular bail application, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as the right and liberty of the individual is involved. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.10.2025, the accused were caught red handed while they were in possession of 45.470 Kgs of Ganja and transporting the same. The contraband and the vehicle were seized under the cover of mediators’ report. 4. Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the contraband involved in the present case is a commercial quantity of 45.470 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 17.10.2025. The petitioners were arrested while they were in possession of the contraband. 3 She would further submit that the statutory period has not yet been completed and that the investigation is still pending. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look on the material placed before this Court, it is a case involving 45.470 Kgs of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity. The statutory period is not yet completed and the investigation is still pending. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. 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 petitioners have not indulged in the commission of the alleged offence and if the petitioners are released on bail they would not commit similar offence in future. There are no merits in the Criminal Petition for grant of bail to the petitioners. 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: 19.02.2026. UPS 5 233 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11856/2025 Dt.19.02.2026 UPS