APHC010647212025 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: 12434/2025 Between: 1. SHAKILA GUNA, D/O. DAYALAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,R/O. H.NO.452, R BLOCK, POONDITHANGAMMALSTREET, NEW WASHERMENPET, TONDIARPET,CHENNAI CITY, TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. ULLI VIJAYA, W/O. RAJUBABU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,R/O. PESARADA VILLAGE, PAKALAPADU PANCHAYAT,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. 3. ULLI RAJUBABU, S/O. KONDABABU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,R/O. PESARADA VILLAGE, PAKALAPADU PANCHAYAT,GOLUGONDA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, 4. MADAKAMI BALANA ALIAS NANI, S/O. KANDABABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O. KANCHARPETA VILLAGE, RELEGEDA PANCHAYAT,MALKANGIRI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. 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 CourtPleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused 2 No.1,3 to 5 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.48/2025 of Chinthapalli P.S., Alluri Sitharama Raju District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. BALABHADRUNI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION N6: 12434 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.48 of 2025 of Chinthapalli Police Station, Alluri Sitharama Raju 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 06.11.2025 at about 15.30 hours, on the outskirts road of Antarla Village, Chintapalli Mandal, A1, A3, A4 and A5 were found in possession of 121.380 KGs of Ganja. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediators report and accused were remanded to judicial custody. 3. Heard Sri Balabhadruni Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were arrested on 06.11.2025 and since then they are in judicial custody. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent and the petitioners are ready to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally prays for grant of bail to the petitioners by imposing any conditions. 4 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed. The quantity of contraband involved in present crime is 121.380 Kgs of Ganja, which is a huge commercial quantity. Statutory period of 180 days is not over and inventory is also 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered at this juncture inasmuch as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have not 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 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: 29.01.2026. ARB 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12434 of 2025 Dt.29.01.2026 ARB