APHC010637522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12272/2025 Between: Biyyala Appala Naidu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHOOMA MAHARSHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The 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 on bail in Crime No.73 of 2023 of Sullurpet Police Station, Tirupathi District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused herein for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2 2. Sri Bhooma Maharshi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence based on the confession of Accused No.3. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition that this Court may impose while granting bail to the petitioner and it is urged to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that only so far ten witnesses are examined. The investigation is at crucial stage, 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. As seen from the record, this is a second bail application. This Court, in Crl.P.No.10389 of 2025, dated 17.10.2025, dismissed the first bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer. Though certain documents are filed to show that she is suffering from cancer, the stage of the illness has not been placed on record. 6. The role of the petitioner came to light based on the confession of Accused No.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied 240 kgs of ganja. So far, one to ten witnesses have been examined. Even though Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 10 were released on regular bail, that itself is not a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail, inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioner are severe and grave in nature when 3 compared to the allegations against the accused who were enlarged on bail. 7. The seized quantity is undoubtedly a colossal quantity. The petitioner was arrested on the execution of a P.T. warrant on 25.08.2025 and has been in judicial custody for the past 133 days only. The petitioner was also arrested in connection with Crime No.45 of 2018 on 15.08.2025. The present crime was registered under the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. 8. 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. 9. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh1 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.” 10. 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. Consequently, it enacted Act 81 of 1985, introducing strict provisions with mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines.” 1 (1999) 9 SCC 429 2 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 11. 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. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Samujh, Durand Didier and Rajesh 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. There are no merits in this case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:05.01.2026 KMS 3 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12272 of 2025 Date: 05.01.2026 KMS